User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 43

Human Y chromosome articles
I do not think that a flame war is encyclopedic material (maybe The_Jerry_Springer_Show The Jerry Springer Show material). I am familiar with the history of the Y chromosome research; however my comment was based on the way Elhaik interacts with scientists in general. Please, see this, end of the abstract here, and the posts here and here. I try not to read intentions in scientific hypotheses (like the mutation rate), but Elhaik’s approach in general strikes me as somewhat unreliable.

I agree that the title "Sex with other human species might have been the secret of Homo sapiens’s [sic] success" is extremely weird. However, it is the title of a totally different piece, which only shares one of the authors of Mendez et al. 2013 It is my understanding that the point estimate cited by Elhaik et al. 2014 (not the confidence intervals) is also present in Mendez et al. 2013. Please, correct me if I am misinterpreting the figure and caption. The estimate of mutation rate of Mendez et al. 2013 is the lowest that I have seen so far in the literature, but the estimates in Francalacci et al. 2013 and Scozzari et al. 2014 are very close. By the way, Scozzari et al. 2014 is a very important paper and I think it should be included both in the pages for the haplogroup A and the Y chromosomal Adam. Please, take a look at that paper, and tell me what you think.

Maybe there could be a specific section on the mutation rate for the human Y chromosome where different estimates are indicated. If there was also an ID of which node of the tree was being considered as Y-MRCA in each of the papers that estimate its age, the article would be much clearer. Cordially,

67.180.239.103 07:49, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into this. I agree of course that we can cite any scholarly publication, each in relation to others on the same topic, but if it should get too involved, we will need to do this at a standalone Haplogroup A00 article (this is surely the best solution, but it means investing the work necessary to build a new article from scratch).

The interesting thing for me was that a new clade "A00" has apparently been found. This does not seem to be under dispute. The "very ancient" date is a WP:REDFLAG, it can by all means be cited, but not as established fact and with the relevant caveats. It is plausible that the divergence would date to roughly 200kya, so this is the unsurprising result, but of course I don't pretend to know the "true" age any more than anyone else. It is unfortunate that the unduly confident publication of an "extremely ancient" date seems to have poisoned the well now, but we'll just have to deal with the situation as it is.

All our Y-haplogroup articles are in disarray, and they are typically far too confident when citing time depths. The most important thing is to impress on the reader that these are estimates with up to 50% uncertainty. It is unreasonable to cite time estimates to the accuracy of a millennium that are just the center of a wide 95% confidence interval (either round to a single significant digit or cite the interval explicitly).

The mutation rate discussion should probably go to the main Y-haplogroup page.

Regards, --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at the arxiv piece by Elhaik and colleagues. The language seemed pretty strong, and quite accusatory, so I decided to do look at it somewhat carefully. This is what I found:

“Their rebuttal consist mainly of hypotheses that are irrefutable and, hence, unscientific, and they mostly ignore the main issues of our critique.” They do not say which statements in the rebuttal are hypotheses, why they would be irrefutable, and what issues are ignored. They just state it without providing any support.

“Mendez et al. (2014) claim that the time to the most common recent ancestor (TMRCA) for some human loci may exceed 1 million years. This may be true for “some human loci,” even some loci on the Y chromosome, however, this claim has nothing to do with the dating in question.”

Some loci on the Y chromosome??!! Except for the pseudoautosomal regions there is a single genealogy for the Y_chromosome, so it is all or none.

“We have no qualms with claims of antiquity for this or that locus, as long as they are not used to promote headlines such as “Sex with other human species might have been secret of Homo sapiens’s [sic] success” (Hammer 2013).”

I looked for two things: 1) whether the expression “Homo sapiens’s” is plain incorrect. A Google search for “homo sapiens’s”, including the quotation marks, a few thousands of hits that predate the article by Hammer. As it turns out, this is irrelevant (see below), and 2) how the two articles,Mendez et al. 2013 and Hammer 2013, were related. I could find a version in the Scientific American website for Hammer 2013:  Now, in page 5, towards the end it indicates: ‘This article was originally published with the title "Human Hybrids."’ So, the title that Elhaik et al. mention is not even the original one!! I do not see how Mendez et al. 2013 was being used to promote a headline that was not even close to the original title. I think I could find out how the weird title came to be, but I am not that interested to spend my time on that. The article by Mendez et al. 2013 does get cited in the Scientific American piece. The article states “my team determined that his sequence represents a previously unknown Y chromosome lineage that branched off the Y chromosome tree more than 300,000 years ago”, a dating that sounds too confident to my taste. However, it also says “the last common ancestor of all modern Y chromosome variants is 70 percent older than previously thought”, which I could trace back in Mendez et al. to the following “Regardless of which mutation rate is applied, the analysis of relative ages of nodes shows that the TMRCA of the A00-rooted tree is 67% older (95% CI 35%–126%) than that of the A0-rooted tree.”

NOTE: I think that is probably the main result in what respects to the age. For the Wikipedia page, it would make sense to round it to 50% (instead of 67%).

Continuing with the arxiv part: “The only thing we were concerned with in Elhaik et al. (2014) was the dating of a Y chromosomal haplotype called A00.” So, either they cared about Hammer 2013 (as they stated in the second sentence of the Preface) or they didn’t (as they say here). This is very confusing...

“In selecting values for d, r, n, l, and tg, Mendez et al. (2013) consistently and without exception chose values that led to overestimating the time of divergence. For each of these variables, Mendez et al. (2013) could have chosen from a wide range of values. However, having the conclusion of great antiquity firmly planted in their mind, they unfailingly selected values that would inflate the time of divergence estimate.”

OK, this was more tedious to check. To begin, the values of d, r, n, l, and tg are not all independent. They just showed an equation that relates n, d and l. Their statement does not even pass the smell test!! I then looked at all, but d.

They say something about the length (l) of sequence being compared, but according to the reply by Mendez et al. 2014, when Elhaik use the same amount of sequences from both lineages they find essentially the same age as when using the full data.

There is also the number of differences between the sequences (n). Wait a second, … did they show that there mutations that are not real? How could Mendez et al. choose anything here? How would they know? What is their basis to state that Mendez et al. (2013) chose the value of n??!!

Then, there is the generation time. They say that in some way it combines with the mutation rate. “ r is often derived from data on number of substitutions per generation. r can, thus, be overestimated by assuming that the generation time, tg, is larger than it really is. ” This is really confusing… Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Anyways, Mendez et al. 2014 say “The point estimate is based on an average of 30 years, which is the same value used in Xue et al”. I went back to Mendez et al. 2013, and it says “To obtain point estimates of the ages of nodes in Figure 1, we used the median value of mY at age 30 years (6.17 *10^-10).”

Then, there is the actual mutation rate. I sat with the equation in Mendez et al. 2013 for a while, and it was not entirely clear to me how it comes to be. However, the fact that Scozzari et al. 2014 found a very similar value using essentially the same kind of data and approach, suggested to me that it is probably not too far off. The assumptions may be problematic, so I wondered why Mendez et al. did not use the estimate from Xue et al. I looked online, and think that a likely cause is that the confidence intervals are quite broad.

The last thing is the “having the conclusion of great antiquity firmly planted in their mind”. As a general rule, I tend to distrust people that portrait themselves as mind readers.

At this point, I was getting tired, so I jumped further to the paragraph with bold text. “The most egregious accusation in Mendez et al. (2014) is one of “fabrication.” In support of this claim, they took the unprecedented step of publishing exchanges of emails between Fernando Mendez and Eran Elhaik without prior approval or permission.” I wondered why would Mendez et al. do that. I looked and found in Mendez et al. 2014 “However, we do wish to point out that the supposed quotation, cited as personal communication FLM, was entirely fabricated, and we include the full set of email correspondence between FL Mendez and E Elhaik as a supplementary file.” Apparently, there is a dispute over a quote. I would look for it, but at this point I do not expect to find it.

To summarize the result of this exercise:

1) The choice of mutation rate is still problematic

2) Elhaik et al. contradict themselves a few times, portrait themselves as mind readers, and provide false statements, and all that in only 4 pages.

3) It would be quite tedious to follow all ideas in the two Mendez et al. and the two Elhaik et al., but after my exercise, I am even more convinced that Elhaik’s work is unreliable.

As you, I think that “extremely ancient” is somewhat of an exaggeration, and clearly not a good word choice. However, I disagree with you when you say “It seems to me to have been established beyond reasonable doubt that the "237-581 kya" range was just sensationalist.” I rather think that most likely Elhaik et al. 2013 was purely sensationalist.

I plan to do some edits based on these thoughts, but we can discuss those further.

Regards,

67.180.239.103 09:32, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)
 * part of your comments are perfectly sensible -- so no offence, but as another part of your comments strongly suggests prior involvement, I am disposed to assume that you are one of the authors of the Mendez 2013 paper. If you are, please state clearly that you are (you can still edit, but it is considered a show of good faith to state your involvement), and if you are not, may I ask you to clearly state you are not? Like this: I, Dbachmann, have no professional involvement whatsoever in anything remotely related to Y-DNA research.
 * also, if you intend to pursue this, perhaps may I invite you to get an account? It will make communication more coherent, and it protects your privacy (you can choose any old username, but your IPs show at least where you are at any given moment (California).
 * the Elhaik preprint is snarky by design, and they published it after a series of events which they considered in bad style, and they completely disclose the series of events that led to the situation. Your characterisation of this as "contradict themselves a few times, portra[y] themselves as mind readers, and provide false statements" is clearly disingenious.
 * However, I have not the slightest interest in this boring Mendez-Elhaik flame war. My only interest was the discovery of A00. If Mendez hadn't gone over board with a hyper-early dating, Elhaik wouldn't have felt the need to mock it, and the entire flame war would not have taken place. I have no interest in establishing which party behaved with less decorum, I was just interested in covering the A00 thing. Therefore I have no interest in smearing Mendez, I just couldn't bring myself to report their age estimate with a straight face, so I was forced to cite Elhaik. That's the full extent of my interest or involvement in this.
 * If I know anything about Wikipedia, it's not worth trying to sort this out now, because it would take longer than until a third uninvolved study of the A00 age. I will happily just have the two date estimates stand alongside one another until such a third study is published (which isn't going to be more than 1-2 years at the most I suppose). --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanskrit protection
Hi, you indefinitely semi-protected Sanskrit in 2008 due to anon revert-warring. Is this still needed or could it be removed now? &clubs;  Ameliorate!  10:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Crab nebula edit
As it appears no one could be bothered to mention this to you, the Crab Nebula article is currently up for FAR ::rollseyes:: as a result of a single edit you made two years ago The edit involves the addition of the text "but its identification using Chinese observations from 1181 is sometimes contested." So, in order to save the original FA nom much heartache, can you provide a ref for that, or alternately, just remove the statement? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignore me, the required cite was a single click away. All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote
Hi Dbachmann. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (72nd to be exact), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Odotheus and Alatheus
Is it possible that the articles on the Gothic chiefs Odotheus and Alatheus might refer to the same person? Krakkos (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems plausible, or at least possible? It's a (mildly) interesting problem for the purposes of Wikipedia what to do with records of what may be either one single or two separate people. In Bhartṛhari we conflated it into a single page. It may make sense to do the same here. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I just looked into it for a few minutes, and it seems to me that in this case, there is a rather clear consensus that this is a single person; and I did not see anyone explicitly stating that they disagree. It's a clear merge candidate. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've now merged Odotheus into the Alatheus article as the name Alatheus is more commonly used in literature (probably because of it's association with the Battle of Adrianople. On a side note, given your appearant interest in the wide range on wikipedian historical articles, i'm sure you've had the misfortune of encountering User:Tirgil34 and his socks. I've recently made an effort to clean up his mess at Wusun, but this has been obstructed by a ducky IP. If you're a German-speaker the edits of the de:Benutzer:Tsaigankuk might of interest. User:Tsaigankuk is proven sock of Tirgil34 and many of his WP:Fringe edits still still stand on the German wiki. Krakkos (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Pomponius Mela
Hi there. We are keen to feature the Karte Pomponius Mela in the launch issue of a new magazine in the UK. Do you have it in a bigger size/ higher res? It needs to be at least 353mm wide and 300dpi.

Please email me on ekb2504@gmail.com.

Thank you so much,

Emily EKB2504 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this file, File:Karte Pomponius Mela.jpg, I don't know why you are asking me, as I didn't upload the file. You want to reprint the map at approximately the same size as it was in the original publication. This is going to be difficult unless you get hold of a well-preserved copy of the original book. Here is a digitisation of that publication, but the Mela map (table 7) seems to be missing. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Runestones and ESOP
Good work there but I've avoided using ESOP, including Tompsen's paper, because it is basically a fringe publication - one suggestion made to me is that ESOP wanted Tompsen's paper simply to rebut it. I'm waiting for an interlibrary loan book to help with at least the Shawnee runestone. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

well, since this isn't a scholarly topic per se, we have to use the best sources available relative to the topic's notability. In my book this stuff is next to unnotable, but of course it can still be on Wikipedia, it just makes sense to adopt the grouping "Oklahoma runestones" that is also used by Tompsen. No, I do not think the Tompsen paper has academic quality. But it's ok relative to the topic notability.

I suppose this is a bona fide topic of local history and folklore, much like the Hamlet's Grave thing I just enjoyed researching (a local pharmacist discovering Hamlet's tomb in 1932, and in 1933 the local tourist board puts up a ten ton granite monument). --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Indo-European expansion
Dear Mr. Bachmann,

whats the source for your map File:IE expansion.png?--Kopiersperre (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

please read the image's talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dingling
Hi, Dbachmann.

You may want to take a quick look at your edit here. This results in
 * "The Dingling ... were an ancient people historiography in the context of the 1st century BCE. "

Something is missing there, maybe just "in" before "historiography"? 220  of  Borg 02:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's what I meant, sorry. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, no worries. reads better now. 220  of  Borg 08:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nsw-bity listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nsw-bity. Since you had some involvement with the Nsw-bity redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For no good reason (except liking a good encyclopedia)
Just wanted to say it's relieving to see you're still chiseling away here. Happy Früelig! ---Sluzzelin talk  01:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

au dir en schöne Früelig! --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Codex Chisianus
Did you intend 88 and mistype 87 here? I have changed it on that assumption. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * yes, thank you. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On further inspection, some authorities do cite it as 87, so your edit was fine. I have added a citation at the target. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kurds infobox
Template:Kurds infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

iThenticate report on Modern runic writing
Hi. :) iThenticate detected duplicated text between Modern runic writing and a couple of external sites that seem to have pulled text from Runes. It looks like you might have started the article by splitting. Are you the sole author of that content you copied? If not, of course, it needs to be attributed it in compliance with our license. Steps for that are set out at Copying within Wikipedia. If you are, of course (and I know this is an area of interest for you), that's not needed. If you could let me know, I'd be happy to mark the iThenticate report as resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you haven't had the time to respond, I've had a further look myself, and it seems that you are not the sole author of this content. For instance, I see in this edit building of the content on Tolkien, which was initially added by another user here.


 * To comply with copyright, content that is taken from one space on a Wikimedia project to another must have attribution. This content is not public domain, but liberally licensed for reuse. The base requirement of copying over such text is attribution in the edit summary, which preserves the mandatory link to the source article in the article's history. Guideline also recommends the use of a note on the talk page, which is easily accomplished by a template like copied.


 * Is this the only article from which you copied content into Modern runic writing? Have you copied content into other articles? It's a bit of a priority to fix, since it's a copyright issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry, I only saw this just now. You are right, I should have said "imported from Runes" or something when I split the article. Although most of the content was indeed mine, and I wouldn't be caught dead plagiarizing "content" like the In the famous J.R.R Tolkien's novels, such as The Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings series he uses runes to interpret the writings on the maps of your diff. --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, that's required and still must be done. :) The procedure is described at Copying within Wikipedia - essentially, you need to make a null edit to record the attribution for any articles you've copied from in an edit summary and put a note on the talk page acknowledging the split. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you did the talk page note. So that's done, but the edit summary must still happen. :) Per GFDL, we are required to retain attribution within it. CC-By-SA also requires that we give credit in the same prominence, so the edit history is needed for this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am glad some attention is being paid to this now, and I have seen this kind of unattributed duplication happen to my own contributions many times over the years. But realistically, if you consider the Wikipedia database as a whole, surely you must realise what you are up against? People have been doing this with impunity for literally a decade, over what by now amounts to millions of pages. If we are serious about this, surely some concerted, scientific approach will be needed. --dab (𒁳) 07:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have several methods for detecting these, from CorenSearchBot and MadmanBot to the new EranBot. The latter is showing great promise. We systematize cleanup of these by creating contributor copyright investigations when necessary to make sure that attribution is added retroactively. Unfortunately, there's a shortage of manpower in the area, but efforts have been systematized for years. As it becomes easier to detect them more quickly, it should help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see that attribution is still not in an edit summary so that the attribution in history is correct. Please don't forget that. The article remains a copyright problem until it's done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Christian cross variants
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Christian cross variants, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.flickr.com/photos/lgdberg/6874293644/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

not again. Can we program these bots not to lose it every time somebody steals content from Wikipedia? --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fusion–fission hybrid reactor listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fusion–fission hybrid reactor. Since you had some involvement with the Fusion–fission hybrid reactor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Other Black
An article that you have been involved in editing, Other Black, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed permalinks
I don't know whether you have Jimbo's talk page on your watchlist, or whether this even interests you, but you're someone I thought of while reading User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you are right, I feel the same frustration about quality deterioration, but I decided some time ago to let this go in the interest of my sanity and peace of mind and chisel away (as you rightly called it) at researching obscure facts instead of carrying the burden of worrying about Wikipedia as a whole. I have not looked at my watchlist in years. Most of the stuff I place on Wikipedia I put there for future reference for my own use, and if I dimly remember putting something in an article, I can always recover it from the edit history even if in the meantime the article was mangled by trolls or idiots. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a great response. Have never thought of it or seen it that way. Amazing synergy, thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk  19:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Albrecht von Scharfenberg
Hiho :) Eben rauschte diese Änderung auf meiner Beobachtungsliste an mir vorbei: Ist soweit natürlich OK! Nur: „fl." dürfte eine den allermeisten Lesern wohl nicht unmittelbar verständliche Abkürzung sein (vermutlich sogar gänzlich unbekannte). Irgendeine Idee wie man das laienkompatibler hinkriegt? Ich würde auf den Klammerzusatz übrigens ganz verzichten und das „(fl. um 1270)" ganz schlicht in einen (Halb-)Satz gut verständlicher Prosa auflösen :) Was meinst Du? Gruß aus der de.WP ;) --Henriette (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * würde ich auch machen, die Schätzung "fl." ist genau dieselbe wie "um 1260-75" für den Jüngeren Titurel (d.h. das einzige, was man über den Autor weiss, ist, dass er in der Zeit produktiv gewesen sein muss, in der er sein Werk produzierte :)
 * Noch besser wäre es wohl, den Artikel explizit dem Werk statt dem Autor (von dem man nichts hat ausser eben dieses Werk) zu widmen. --dab (𒁳) 16:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, das ist eine gute Idee! :) Vom Autor kann man dann ja entspannt einen Redirect zum Werk legen und in den Werkartikel einen kleinen Absatz zum Autor einbauen. Sehr gut, gefällt! Ich filze die Tage mal meine altgermanistische Fachliteratur (gut möglich, daß ich sogar eine Kopie des passenden VL-Artikels habe) und bastele das um. Danke Dir sehr!! :) --Henriette (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

FYA
Tenth Crusade. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

stadion
hi, in this edit you removed another stadion that shares the same name, was this by mistake? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * stadion is just the word for stadium in many languages. My rationale is that if something is known as "Something something Stadion" (in this case: Puskás Ferenc Stadion), it does not qualify for disambiguation for "things also known as Stadion"). But I don't really care. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Mop wedding
I thought your analysis of this as being unsupported was correct, so I have quoted your analysis in my deletion nomination at Articles for deletion/Mop wedding. I also could not find a mention of mop weddings, or even mop fairs, in those two available sources. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you -- well done us. --dab (𒁳) 05:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Calendars
Please explain why you are changing the grouping in List of calendars on that article's talk page. I've already started a section to discuss this. Karl (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * based on WP:TNT. I am trying to turn it into something useful (an unabelled list has worth zero, as it is equivalent to a category link). Ideally, this should become a referenced multi-column list. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Uysyn
Hi, Dbachmann. I recently discovered that the article Uysyn is largely copied from a suspicious website. As you've been dealing with adherents of this website on various articles for several years, your input at Articles for deletion/Uysyn could be helpful. Krakkos (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ulrich Bräker
Dbachmann, could you please expand the article about your compatriot? --217.118.86.101 (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * you are welcome. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good work. --217.118.86.101 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation request
It would b preferable and more convenient to split British India in a disambiguation page, one linking to the British Raj and another to Presidencies and provinces of British India. I know both pages are linked on each other, but this would still be more convenient for the readers and easier for readers to find what they're looking for. Please consider it. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.60.247 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I think there was a drawn-out discussion about this at some point. The thing is that "British India" often, but not exclusively refers to the "British Raj". But "British India" is too common a term, and will be frequently linked to, to make it a disambiguation page. I see how the current state can be seen as unintuitive, I am just saying some thought did go into it and you should think twice, and then seek further input, before you just switch things around. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * While we're discussing it, I don't think the demographics section of the British Raj is helpful. It covers really India and not other regions part of the British Raj including Eastern Afghanistan. I think a new article called Demographics of the British Raj is required.--69.159.60.247 (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, do it. Keeping in mind, of course, that "India" pre-1947 was not coterminous with the territory of what is now the Republic of India, "India" included Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal at least, but arguably also (parts of) Afghanistan and Burma. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL (as the kids say)
. Hi, Dab, long time no see. I see you're still at it, you POV-pusher you.. --Folantin (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

you caught me bothering about something I should long have learned not to bother about :) --dab (𒁳) 12:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've just had a similar bout of masochistic nostalgia and am now regretting it. I saw your comment here a couple of months back and thought it was spot on. The improvement in Google Books over the past few years also means anyone with half a brain no longer has to bother with Wikipedia for anything controversial. Nowadays I'm inclined to let the nationalist trolls and other POV-pushers wreck articles because they make such a mess of them no sane person would trust the resulting trainwreck. This is a prime example. I also love the fact the trolls have no conception of "tl;dr" and insist on detailing their boring obsessions at immense and unreadable length. Better to leave them to it; they usually make a better job of warning normal readers off than any number of Wiki-tags.
 * Anyhow, hope you are keeping well. My blood pressure has certainly improved since I stopped bothering too much about such things. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mole-Dagbon listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mole-Dagbon. Since you had some involvement with the Mole-Dagbon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —M@sssly ✉ 14:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Name Yahweh
Hi Dab. Your edits to the "origins" section of Yahweh have created a situation where two paragraphs contain identical information, in different words and from different sources. This at least shows that the information is reliable, but it would better if the two paras were merged and repetitions removed. Just a suggestion. (I have no objection to the edit you made, just a discomfort with the repetition). PiCo (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit comment
Perhaps you were looking for Marian art in the Catholic Church? LeadSongDog come howl!  19:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * great, thanks, somehow this didn't seem to be linked from any of the relevant articles? --dab (𒁳) 19:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Outline of The Transhumanist
Hi! Saw this comment of yours, which I heartily agree with. I have been having trouble at Ceramic art (c. 120 views per day), where he popped up one day to move the serviceable existing article to History of ceramic art (c. 10 views per day), putting in its place an unillustrated page of almost entirely technical gobbets lifted from other pages (as he left it). I've protested but 2 other editors are divided, so I've let it run to allow improvement. Nearly a month on there has hardly been any, so I will shortly move to redirect CA to HofCA (or something). Your comments now or then would be very welcome. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * lol, Outline of the Transhumanist. This has got to be one of the more annoying well-meaning users of the entire project. But I suppose the law of large numbers implies that sooner or later we were going to be stuck with such a character. I am surprised, and troubled, to see that his "contributions" now also extend to actual articles. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Early Quranic Maniscripts
This new page appears to duplicate that for the History of the Quran. Why do we need it? TomHennell (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tamils
Hi Dab, It's been a long time since our paths have overlapped, but just wanted to check with you about this article. I'm planning to take it to WP:FAR -- while it's impossible to keep out the POV and poor sourcing, the least we could do is not misguide our readers into thinking that the FA star on top means that this article is one of our best. In this context, I was wondering if you could just take a look and let me know what problems you see, either here or on the article talk page would be good. I am compiling a list of specific problems, so that would be helpful. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Kalam CA
Hi, I've reinstated your old cleanup notice at Kalam cosmological argument. You were absolutely right, and although I see it was you who then removed the cleanup, I think you maybe gave up too soon :-) The article lead, as it stands, is pretty poor, focusing as it does on WLC's work. Anyway, just thought I'd pop by to say hullo. Sleety Dribble (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Narsilion (band)


The article Narsilion (band) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not meet any criteria of WP:BAND. All sources in the article are dead.  Band's website is dead.  There is no significant coverage of the band to be found (note: "Narsilion" is a Tolkien reference). The band has not released on major labels, is not an originator of its style, has not charted on major charts, has not been in competitions, and meets no criterion whatsoever.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MSJapan (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Origin of religion
Would you please revisit Origin of religion? You can read discussion at User talk:Editor2020, regarding what happened recently. I don't get what is so new in this article that cannot be found in Theories about religions, Paleolithic religion and few others. I think it should be better kept as a redirect, what do you think Dbachmann? 2001:41D0:6B:3D00:0:0:0:21C (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You had looked into this? 2001:41D0:6B:3D00:0:0:0:21C (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hattat Aziz Efendi


The article Hattat Aziz Efendi has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redsky89 (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hattat Aziz Efendi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hattat Aziz Efendi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hattat Aziz Efendi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Redsky89 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See Muhammad_of_Ghor
There are many articles in Wikipedia using a mediaeval ballad Prithviraj Raso as a reliable source of history, while the highest authorities on mediaeval Indian history are ignored. I added some sourced material in the article Muhammad_of_Ghor which was reverted by Kansas_Bear without discussion. I have made it a policy not to interfere in Wikipedia if someone reverts my contributions, because I have neither any interest in nor time for fightings. Since you are interested in India-related articles, you can see the changes at :- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_of_Ghor&type=revision&diff=674742674&oldid=674729398 Kansas_Bear's talk page contains the web link of the textbook which I had cited. It is the basic textbook in India. Unfortunately, Kansas_Bear thinks the information I provided is related only to a ballad Prithviraj Raso and is irrelevant to the real history of either Muhammad_of_Ghor or Prithviraj Chauhan and other related articles, ignoring the fact that this information is related to the incident from which slavery of India begins:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kansas_Bear#Wrong_Editing_of_Muhammad_of_Ghor I have provided it merely as an information to you, and I will not pursue this or any other issue.VJha (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I said the information, was poorly placed, poorly written, and improperly sourced. Dbachmann is more than welcome to read the "discussion" on my talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both of you are active editors (I have little time for Wikipedia NOW), and if I put it wrongly, either ignore the information or use it properly, I am not going to edit these articles because I keep away from reverted articles. I have done my duty by sending the correct information together with authoritative source, either use it or keep the correct information out of Wikipedia. Wrong info about Prithviraj is used by right-wing Hindu extremists in India, while Satish Chandra is a leftist ; I keep away from both.VJha (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ulfbert-Schwerter
Anmerkungen (durchaus berechtigt) besser in dem zusammenfassenden Lemma als in dem Gräberfeldartikel Sommerx2015 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * völlig richtig, ich fühlte mich etwas sarkastisch, aber es ist sicher richtig, wenn die Fussnote als ganzes entfernt wird. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content
If I reverted your edits in error. Apologies. However I did see that the section on chlorophobia - fear of clowns - had been removed and I assumed that you had done that. This section had referenced content and there was no explanation for its removal Robynthehode (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem. But "chlorophobia" would be fear of greens, I suppose. I did not remove the rambling about "sacred clowns in ancient Egypt", I moved it into a section on cultural comparison. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic
Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will try to modify the references so that they can be as the one of English language. I ask if you can help in this. --Csisc (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism
Yes, could use some help again. The "Heathenry" person from a couple years ago is back, and is engaging in wholesale edits. He used to call himself Bhlegkorbh, but now he calls himself Midnightblueowl  He now claims he is a female user, a nice piece of misdirection. I must admire his tenacity, even if he is a problem  --ThorLives (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Harivamsa Purana
Hi, I'm ONUnicorn. Dbachmann, thanks for creating Harivamsa Purana!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Article cites only the text that is the subject of the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Arabic alphabet (writing of the hamza) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Arabic alphabet (writing of the hamza). Since you had some involvement with the Arabic alphabet (writing of the hamza) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fried Gold (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Clime
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash; Clime &mdash;has been proposed for merging with Climata. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Hope you have time to contribute; your comments would be welcome. Thank you. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Hellenistic geographers
Category:Hellenistic geographers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. trespassers william (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back...
...to Indian articles. Just saw you on Saka era while looking through my watchlist. Mbh sub-topics have sorely missed you! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I kind of stumbled into it. I don't think I have the nerve for any kind of sustained effort though :) --dab (𒁳) 19:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't blame me for trying! Btw, at least as far as mythology crossing over to caste history we have some new sanctions available that'll hopefully keep out The Adventures of Odin Singh in the Land of the Blue-eyed Blondes from Jat people and so on. There's now a bit more awareness on some of these topics and although the problems have increased over the past few years, the enforcement of policy has also increased; we have a few more admins able and willing to enforce policy in these areas although we seem to be shorter on editors who (IMO at least) were lost as casualties in the effort against the propagation of bovine excrement in this space. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Dbachmann, thanks for adding edit summaries. I didn't know you had been a regular at Indian articles. As you might know, vandalism and POV edits are a big problem on India pages, and the number of edits that pop on my watch list is growing everyday. Edits without summaries make it harder for me (and others) to review them. You can give cursory summaries if you wish such as "copy edit" or "rearrange" etc. If you use Twinkle, it provides a bunch of canned edit summaries you can use. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * it's ok, Kautilya, it was a misunderstanding. --dab (𒁳) 19:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Boasting for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boasting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Boasting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Early Modern linguists
I have nominated Category:Early Modern linguists for dispersal and deletion, which you appear to have envisaged anyway. Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Law of One (The Ra Material) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Law of One (The Ra Material) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Law of One (The Ra Material) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Neofonie for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neofonie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Neofonie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Erika Bertschinger
I recently did a basic rewrite and restructure of the Uriella article (now Fiat Lux (religion)) based on high quality academic sources, however I also found much Swiss and German news coverage of Erika Bertschinger that I can't quite evaluate, even with Google Translate. Can you advise if this news coverage is just tabloid gossip/scandal, or if there is anything encyclopedic that should be included in the article? Best regards. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

About an article "Abhas Mitra"
I agree with the things you posted on the talk page "Abhas Mitra". I also posted a similar message there before seeing your message. I think we should clean this page as soon as possible since in my opinion this is simply becoming a "publicity stunt" using Wikipedia. Thank you.

Snehalshekatkar (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Question
thanks for the "trophy" :) I have replied via e-mail. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Persian Empire
Per WP:DABCONGEO, Persian Empire is a concept capable of being described in an article. However, if you believe that it should be a disambiguation page, please fix all incoming links first. bd2412 T 16:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BD2412 said much the same on my page but also suggested we tag it as a WP:SIA which seems a good idea. Doug Weller (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BD2412, it was a disambiguation page de facto when I found it, it was just pointlessly spammed with a collection of maps on top of that. "Persian Empire" is indeed "a concept capable of being described in an article", and that article is at History of Iran, we do not need a separate article that also discusses the History of Iran from 600 BC to AD 1979.
 * Persian Empire, as it stands, is not a "WP:SIA" (comparable with Dodge Charger). If BD2412 feels compelled to invest the time and effort necessary to develop it into a SIA, he doesn't need anyone's permission to do so. Once he has turned it into a decent SIA, we can review that and the discussing will be different (likely one of WP:CFORK, but perhaps BD2412's work will be so great that everyone will agree to leave it as it is). But I have learned, in my decade on Wikipedia, that you should never waste time on discussing articles that might but do not exist with people who insist on building an argument related to an existing page based on the merit of a non-existing one: they never seem to be the same people who actually buckle down and spend a day just writing their hypothetical article, they always seem to assume good articles on Wikipedia tend to emerge magically or organically. Let BD2412 write the article and we can talk about it then, or let him concede that there is no article under discussion at present, just an obvious disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Barefact's rant
Hi Dbachmann, did you notice the rant about the Uysyn which Barefact posted on his website? He has a specific library on this website displaying how he's influenced wikipedia, along with other claims of Etruscans, Sumerians, Celts, Vikings etc being of Turkic origin. Sockmasters like Tirgil34, Egaplaicesp and Yakbul are is frequently quoting Barefact and his site on Wikipedia, while Barefact frequently refers to Tirgil34's Youtube account, which in turn links to Barefacts webside. It seems like Barefact plays an intricate role in the recent turanist onslaught on Wikipedia. Is there anything that can be done about this? Krakkos (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, "Barefact" is a well-known troll that has cost Wikipedia countless man-hours of cleanup and babysitting over the years. If the administrative process worked, he would have been permabanned long ago. However, I have stopped bothering with administrativa or trying to enforce rules or sanity on Wikipedia years ago, because I found it interfered with my peace of mind and enjoyment of researching content too much. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Dbachmann: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Solomon7968 06:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Star and crescent
An apparent new user has been invoking your name at this article. Any insight? Best, Kafka Liz (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My insight would be that Wikipedia is still trolled by Türkic cryptonationalists (see section on User:Barefact above), because the administrative process is broken. And I thank you for watching out for the article.
 * Note that I am by no means "specialized" or particularly interested in Turkic nationalism in specifically (nor do I have any prior specialist knowledge on or stakes in the topic, I have to research it from secondary sources like any other subject); the organised Persian/Iranian kind does even more damage to our articles, and there is any number of other types, albeit mostly far less prominent. --dab (𒁳) 13:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, the Türks (sic indeed) versus the Persians. Good times. Some of the dumbest POV-warriors I ever met on Wikipedia. I've almost completely disengaged from that area, overpopulated as it is with socks of banned users. I used to have a pretty good "bad faith" detector: a Türkic jingoist will insist the Scythians, Ossetians etc. were really Türkic not Iranian; a Persian jingoist will do anything to distract from the fact that Iran was ruled by Turkic dynasties for centuries. They're also the kind of editors who insist imperialism is a Bad Thing yet edit-war over which of their peoples had the biggest empire (!). Since I know only two (maybe three?) active admins who deal with any nationalist troublemakers at all and I don't want to stretch them to breaking point, I'm out of there. It's clear there is no will at a higher level to sort out the fundamental problems with nationalist POV-pushing so I don't know why I should lose any more sleep over it. Unfortunately, there are few if any areas of Wikipedia not afflicted by their quota of belligerent bozos. How I miss Doctor Boubouleix, someone who put imagination - and crazy franglais - into his disruption.
 * On that cheerful note, Merry Christmas! --Folantin (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I might be willing to look at Turkic origin stuff, but can't promise. I'm surprised this hasn't come to ArbCom. Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope Dab doesn't mind me butting in on his talk page again to wish you a Merry Christmas, Doug. BTW You were one of the "two (maybe three?) active admins" I had in mind above. Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Yin and yang page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=696969511 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F696969511%7CYin and yang%5D%5D Ask for help])

Paul the Deacon
Regarding this: I'm curious how you knew who it was (and that it isn't Paul)? I just grabbed it from the Paul the Deacon article, and I don't know anything about him other than the role he played in De verborum significatu, so this is less a challenge than a question for my own edification :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The image had been added to the Paul the Deacon article by mistake. See my image description on commons. --dab (𒁳) 17:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Turkology article
Turkology has a long section on "Persecution in Soviet Russia" and a list of "Turkology scholars persecuted in 20th-century Soviet Russia". This appears to be a perfectly fine subject for an article on its own, and given that Turkic probably has been studied to a greater extent at Russian than Western universities, it is likely to be a subject worth treating briefly in the main article, but the amount of material there now seems somewhat WP:UNDUE. --Hegvald (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is hilarious. Of course "Turkology in the Soviet Union" would be a valid topic, but what we have here is more random "Barefact" type randomness. I do not doubt that Stalin gave a hard time to nationalist intellectuals, but I doubt he "persecuted Turkology" in particular. Anyway, "a Turkology student was arrested during Stalinism" is hardly Wikipedia material. --dab (𒁳) 07:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Khereid
Dear Dbachmann, I have been involved in developing the recent Karait article and the Khereid article has been brought up quite a bit by one user in the talk there. Having a looked through the history of the Khereid page I found your insertion and completely agree. The general feel on the Talk:Khereid page is also in harmony with the need for a complete re-write. Furthermore the name of the article and much of its information was inserted by sockpuppets of blocked User:Ancientsteppe. I want to give it a bash but it looks like quite a massive job and I am a bit of a novice. I would like to trim it right down to bare bones and remove much of the information to another more streamlined article. Any tips and pointers would be appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken a bash, any constructive criticism would be welcome.YuHuw (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sure it is much improved.
 * If I may make a suggestion: I should avoid the phrasing "scholars suggest" or similar: if your source is Grousset (1970), you should say "Grousset (1970) suggests". If Grousset 1970 does not himself suggest anything but say that "scholarly opinion is such and such", you should quote that passage verbatim and say something like "according to Gorusset (1970), scholarly opinion to the effect such and such is considered this or that".
 * also, you should get rid of "references" that are just websites, such as history.kz or www-rohan.sdsu.edu; if these are online copies of published literature, you should cite the literature (and then you can still link to the online copy for ease of reference). --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ibn Abd al-Zahir
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ibn Abd al-Zahir, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://mamluk.lib.uchicago.edu/mamluk-secondary.php?caller=3&start=1&op=AND&searchauthor0=&searchauthor1=&searchauthor2=&searchtitle0=&searchtitle1=&searchtitle2=&searchsubject=Individuals--Ibn%20Abd%20al-Zahir&limit=50&searchlanguage=.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Datei:Europe islands.svg
Hello Dbachmann,

there is a question about the File Europe islands.svg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Europe_islands.svg It is in italian but used also in the german version of the list. Is it posible, to translate the names of the islands to german and if, how. --Elrond (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hello, I understand I am required to post this here because I mentioned you in a dispute resolution discussion Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Very sorry, still new to all this, apparently I had to move it here and notify you again There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. YuHuw (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Maiorana wording
Hello User:Dbachmann, can you take a look at the Maiorana article to see if the wording is right, if comas are used in the right place (or needed in others) and check were links are used. I'd appreciate it very much, tell me what you think, thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Emperorofthedaleks, I should not worry about comma placement too much, your first concern is to cite a source for your information. Also, you may want to consider a merger with Majorana (surname) (or else establish that the two names are of distinct origin). --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as you think the article is worded in a way that makes sense, I trust you, cheers.--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, do you also trust me when I say that you cannot say stuff like "The surname Maiorana is derived from the Norman given name Mauger", even if it is true, unless you cite your source? That was kind of my main point. Or, indeed, the entire point of Wikipedia as a project. --dab (𒁳) 00:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand, but then again a lot of other surname articles on Wikipedia say stuff without citing source(s), I'm not saying it's right but there's not much point to me applying this to Maiorana article without getting the rest of them. A good example of one is Stock (surname) which says "The surname Stock is derived from the German word stoc", and it is true, as with Maiorana origin, just isn't a source listed. Anyway, you checked the article's presentation and spelling like I asked so I'm grateful, thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAP, just because we have a lot of dimwits and lazy people editing here this doesn't mean you have to be one of them :) I would not have insisted on this if you hadn't specifically asked for my opinion about your edit. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Political extremism in Switzerland


A tag has been placed on Political extremism in Switzerland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

POV redirect to a nonexistent target (WP:CSD G8)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PanchoS (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

History of Carthage merge
There is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage. You are being approached as you are a recent or significant editor of one or other of the articles, or because you have expressed interest in the merge previously.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to discuss a controversial article you edited previously
You are invited to comment on the article "List of expeditions ordered by Muhammad" in the Wikipedia Administrators Notice Board. Your input is highly valued as you edited this article previously.

Click here: Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias to comment--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Germania
I see your name on nearly every page related to things Germania. I may not always agree with you, but you seem an intelligent, balanced, and unbiased user. Thank you for your valuable contributions here.73.220.34.167 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you, I have to say, I do not always agree with myself :) as after more than ten years of doing this, there is no way to avoid learning new things. I would love to go over points of disagreement and improve coverage on them (but you should get an account for that of course). --dab (𒁳) 07:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, wikipedia does not encourage accounts. I do not know how you do it. But I have all of my contributions or edits deleted immediately, I get stalked, harassed, banned, and so on. I am not ashamed to say that I have lost many accounts and have given up. Strangely, as an "IP" as the dialect calls us derisively, I my edits and contributions have a 90% rate of retention. With an account, only about 5% stays. Strange... I know sometimes I am informal in talk pages, but so are others. In articles I try to be a pragmatic and practical German... There should be some discussion about the phenomenon. 73.220.34.167 (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Paul the Deacon / Eutropius (revisited)
Hi there,

Some months ago you pointed out that File:Paulus Diaconus.jpg is not, in fact, Paul the Deacon but is actually Eutropius (historian) (I presume, rather than Eutropius (consul)). I left a message about it, and you directed me to your Commons description. I forgot to follow up, but am reminded today so doing so. I'm just curious how you know it was a mistake? I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, but if it is indeed a mistake, that image is still all over various Wikipedias as Paul the Deacon (and, because of that, all over the Internet as such). Perhaps the answer is as simple as "I can read Latin and the text says it's Eutropius". If that's the case, I'd be happy to rename the file on Commons and carry out the replacement of the images elsewhere -- I just need to know what I'm basing it on (as is probably apparent, I cannot read Latin and do not see any readily available translation). Thanks. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can read Latin and the text says it's Eutropius :) --dab (𒁳) 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A move
Hi, you have moved Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal to 16 Great Turkic Empires (without a discussion, by the way). Well I don't think this is a wise choice. As you can see in the discussion, 16 Turkic empires is not an encyclopaedic topic; simply because it is not a fact. But the presidential seal is a fact. (It is more or less like United Kingdom coat of arms; there are no lions in the United Kingdom, but there are lions in the coat of arms.) Thus the former title is a more appropriate title. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The presidental seal already has its own article, if you want to merge it, propose a merge. The "fact" here is the 1969 idea about these "16 states". It's a topic of Turkish nationalism and national identity, not of "historic states". You will find it hard to dispute the "facts" that as they are now presented in the article (1969 idea and criticism, fictional flags, Erdogan's reception etc.). If you do not think these facts are encyclopedic, you are free to propose a merger or submit the page for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 19:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)$

Richard I of England
Hi,

Your recent changes to the sexuality section needs some revision. Other editors might just revert it otherwise. The first sentence reads as though homosexuality is a crime, this really needs to be reversed or moderated. A later sentence in sensu stricto reads as though Richard were capable of sexual relations when dead. Urselius (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a crime (in most countries) today, but it obviously was during Richard's lifetime. I am not making a value judgement at all, but I imagine this must really go without saying (apparently not?). The main argument in favour of his homosexuality seems to be based on his apparent confession to the "sin of sodomy"? I.e. it is beyond debate that Richard, and everyone else in his time, considered "sodomy" a "sin", the question is merely whether he did confess himself guilty of it.

You are free to rephrase or clarify, the main point of my edit was to shorten an excessively wordy summary of what is a topic of a 20th-century "historian's dispute" only very tangential to the article subject. But your use of "needs to be reversed or moderated" suggests you are not really familiar with Wikipedia or its content guidelines? --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A forgotten German antiquary
In Die Serapionsbrüder, E. T. A. Hoffmann frequently mentions a certain Haftitius as one of his main sources. I assume it's the same person as de:s:ADB:Hafftiz, Peter. Could you verify from German sources? --Ghirla-трёп- 19:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's him. I put together a quick page at Peter Hafftiz. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I came across the name while working on ru:Серапионовы братья (Гофман). --Ghirla-трёп- 16:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Copying within Wikipedia
An edit made to Romanos IV Diogenes at 05:39, 1 November 2010 by user:Oatley2112. At 10:33, 17 March 2016 you copied text from Romanos IV Diogenes. Your comment to the edit history "import from emperor bio pages" does not meet the requirements of WP:Copying within Wikipedia. See the section WP:ATTREQ. You needed to provide a link to the pages from which you copied the text eg "text copied from Romanos IV Diogenes..."

There is a further problem. You have copied text from several pages and have provided short and long citations to two different books by the same author: but because you have not included the year in the short citations it is impossible to tell if the short citation "Norwich, pg. 5" refers to to a page in the volume Byzantium: The Apogee or Byzantium: The Decline and Fall.

Please fix the attribution to meet copyright attritions and please fix the short citations by adding the year to the short citations. -- PBS (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are, technically, 100% right, and I was actually half wondering if anyone was going to call me out on it, so, well done, it is reasurring to see that there are still people looking out for the project's integrity. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind remarks. However please can you fix the short citation "Norwich, pg. 5"? -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By going back to the original articles and formatting their short citations with dates, and some further string matches, I think I have managed to match up all the citations. It turns out that "Norwich, pg. 5" came from Alexios I Komnenos and the editors there had used yet another volume by John Julius Norwich so I was able to fix the inline citation to . So there is no need for you to work it out. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for your contribution! Fixing things that you find are broken is pretty much the primary task of the Wikipedian imho. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Descent to the underworld listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Descent to the underworld. Since you had some involvement with the Descent to the underworld redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File: listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:, has been listed at Files for discussion. See also The mass request on the commons of which it is a part. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Files on skin colour AlwaysUnite (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC) AlwaysUnite (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Astronomy in the medieval Islamic world
I've recently commented on an old post of yours at Talk:Astronomy_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world. You might want to comment. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Index of urban studies articles listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Index of urban studies articles. Since you had some involvement with the Index of urban studies articles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Name of Luxembourg listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Name of Luxembourg. Since you had some involvement with the Name of Luxembourg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia is now funding Wikipedia content? That's despicable. Clearly, Wikipedia as a project is now in active danger because Wikimedia has become over-funded and over-motivated. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Help
I'm trying to make Assyrian people articles less crazy primordialist, care to help? This template basically sums up everything wrong with the wikiproject. My view on the subject is that Assyrians are descended from multiple peoples including but certainly not exclusive to ancient assyrians but its absurd to say they are the ancient assyrians- the assyrian empire comprised many peoples and it was never ethnically exclusive in the first place, not to mention it was invaded by other peoples and the assyrian church was a prosyletizing religion. As Encylopedia Brittanica affirms,"In the New Babylonian, or Chaldean, empire, Chaldeans, Aramaeans, and Babylonians became largely indistinguishable." One of my biggest concerns is the ridiculous assertion that assyrians always had an assyrian identity and that westerners confused them by calling them other things- when the opposite is true. Also the repetition of the myth that "syrian" is simply a corruption of "assyrian". I also think it's important not to "take sides"- ie don't say "they call themselves aramean but they're really assyrians"- which is exactly what arameans say about assyrians. We should just use the nuetral term "syriac".--Monochrome _ Monitor Sources:
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * You are obviously right on all of this. I have invested a lot of time trying to clean up this area of Wikipedia, but the "primordialist" stuff just creeps back in when people aren't looking. So these days I am taking a cost-benefit analysis to editing Wikipedia mostly.
 * It isn't necessary to remove all mention of Assyria in the Syrian-Aramaic context. It's a case of Romantic Nationalism, and coverage should focus on the modern sentiment regardless of its historical justification rather than trying to debunk the sentiment. Back in the day I created the Terms for Syriac Christians article precisely to discuss all of this nonsense and get it out of the way for other pages where it is off topic. Of course the page is buried in crap by now, c.f. this for how it was supposed to look like: i.e. a quick overview of this craziness for the uninitiated. WP:TNT may be the best approach here. --dab (𒁳) 07:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * actually, I should add that it appears that Syria is indeed a "corruption" of Assyria after all. Not that it matters to any of this, as the two forms have been separate for 2000 years or so (but not 2800 years). --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Syria- which is a corruption of assyria- but about Syrian/Syriac the ethnonym. Syriacs used to call themselves Suroye, or Syrians. They say that "syriac/syrian" is a corruption of "assyrian". The word for assyrian in syriac is Aturaye anyway, not Asuroye. I'm looking for a completely neutral source on the matter. The source wikipedia uses to say that syriac=assyrian is incidentally "Assyria and Syria:Synonyms"- to which this is a direct response. --Monochrome _ Monitor  16:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * well, it is hard to see how "Syria" can derive from "Assyria" without also "Syrian" deriving from "Assyrian". But this is ancient (Iron Age) etymology, it has no bearing on modern ethnonymy. --dab (𒁳) 07:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In less controversial related matters, the article Panbabylonism is totally bullshit. It should be called "similarities between jewish and babylonian traditions"- but that's not panbabylonism, which is now considered psuedoscience. It was this brief movement supported mostly by german assyriologists which basically said that the cultures of ancient levant if not most of the world are directly derived from babylonian culture. This has different streams, including the "Star-myth" theory started by Hugo Winckler that every ancient near eastern culture/religion is based on babylonian astrology/astronomy. A more controversial stream (with antisemitic under and overtones) is the Bible-Babel theory, which says that the jews "stole" the hebrew bible from "aryan" babylon (similar to the way afrocentrists say greeks "stole" from "black" egypt). Panbabylonism is now only supported by assyrian nationalist "scholars", including Simo Parpola... who is used as a source on many assyrian articles. Here's a great rundown of panbabylonism. Also the article Lebanese people is littered with phonecianism... some of that is my fault (added the category "phoenician people" (as part of an effort to categorize canaanite peoples) and then reverted it but was reverted back.--Monochrome _ Monitor  17:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Lastly, how far should we let the nationalism go? For me calling arameans assyrian is out of the question, as is appropriating babylonian achievements because both assyrians and babylonians came from the akkadians... assyrians in contrast to babylonians were pretty barbarous.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome  _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  18:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am really happy to see a critical editor with the energy to tackle this mess, believe me. But it would seem that you yourself somehow are partisan in this? I mean, this is about modern ethnic identity, while "Aramaeans" and "Assyrians" both are ancient nations. How the hell is it "correct" or "incorrect" to call your ethnic group after some ancient group you are loosely descended from? It's like calling the Swiss Helvetians, or the Germans Teutons, or, for that matter, the British British. It's not "correct" or "incorrect", it's just a matter of convention. Wikipedia doesn't need to argue against these terms, it needs to get rid of all the childish ethnic essentialism that naive souls apparently feel the need to constantly insert.
 * I would still object to your statement that "Panbabylonism is totally bullshit". That's like saying that "Plutonism is totally bullshit": it's a historical term for the early, and possibly still flawed, phase of what would become so standard a view that it ceased to even have a special name. --dab (𒁳) 07:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no stakes in the issue. I'm still learning and navigating the nationalist waters. When I say "call the arameans assyrians" I meant call the ancient arameans assyrians.... not the modern identifying ones. When I say "panbabylonism is totally bullshit"- I mean the article. The article describes something which is totally unrelated to panbabylonism. THIS is panbabylonism. It's like ancient aliens stuff.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  07:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, I see. Your having no stakes in this and still being willing to engage makes you a very valuable asset. But I do not understand your issue with the Panbabylonism article. It isn't excellent, but it clearly describes something directly related to the page you just linked. The Hebrew Bible, as redacted in the 5th century BC, was clearly and very stronly influenced by Babylonian culture of the 6th century BC. The influence can be overstated, I suppose, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the influence was there. For people in the 19th century, this was pretty much an earth-shaking revelation while we can more or less file it under "meh, stands to reason".
 * Of course, the ancient Aramaeans and Assyrians started out as two completely separate branches of the Semitic peoples. But their de-facto merger took place by about the 6th century BC, so for any time later than, say, 500 BC, it is perfectly reasonable to treat "Aramaean" and "Assyrian" as a continuum, or melting pot, or ensemble, or something. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A valuable asset, eh? Am I being recruited for a mission? That's not what panbabylonism is about. Panbabylonism is a theory that every religion in the near east if not the world is based on mystical interpretations of babylonian astrology. The bible-babel school also does not say there was "influence". It says there was a direct appropriation. As for arameaness, aforementioned mixing was Chaldea/Aramean babylon. But in the levant arameans were always a large majority... well till the arabs. Incidentally you mentioned semitic peoples, that's an article I have a long struggle with. Check the talk page discussions if you dare. I have the bear bones page in "progress". --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  08:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The mission known as WP:ENC (aka Wikipedia). Well. I would endorse this account,
 * Hugo Winckler prägte dann den Begriff Panbabylonismus, um den von ihm postulierten weitreichenden Einfluss des assyrischen Denkens auf den israelischen Gottesgedanken zu beschreiben, den er als Echo des Astralkultes ansah. Ihm folgten Peter Jensen und Alfred Jeremias, die einen Großteil der Erzählungen des Alten Testaments aus dem Gilgamesch-Epos herleiteten.

It used to be a serious hypothesis, and it was partly correct even though exaggerated; weitreichender Einfluss des assyrischen Denkens auf den israelischen Gottesgedanken  is pretty much what I said, and meant, and is probably also partially compatible with the way you prefer to phrase it. Make of that what you will, but let's save our breaths to tackle the actual nonsense in article space. Sigh, and the "Semitic" thing is idiotic. When I say "Semitic peoples", obviously I am referring to what is treated, for some reason, under "Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples". --dab (𒁳) 13:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As am I. I don't understand why they cant just be under "Semitic peoples". In fact the article "ancient semitic speaking peoples" is quite new. On panbabylonism "the fundamental tenets were eventually dismissed as psuedoscientific"--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  18:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, I am afraid the thing you are pointing me at strikes me as postmodernist pap. I do not deny that "Panbabylonism" and what not is tied up with the Orientalism and even Antisemitism of its era. This is what I meant by "exaggeration". This doesn't mean, however, that its "fundamental tenets" were "pseudoscientific". This is nonsense. They were, at best, wrong (I would say, partly wrong), but being wrong does not amount to "pseudoscience", the same way phlogiston was not "pseudoscience", it was actual science that just happened to turn out to be flawed (and flawed not just in a verifiable way but even in a helpful way conductive to further progress). If you are going to throw out the difference between error and pseudoscience for rhetorical effect, you will end up with mere rhetorics. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note I am not defending Panbabylonism as "correct" any more than I am defending phlogiston. I am just saying it is so easy to see its flaws today that it tends to obscure the parts that were actually correct and novel, but by now are so unremarkable that we fail to even recognize them as achievements. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm against post-modernist pap as much as anyone. I'll quote a different source. "Almost in scholastic isolation Kugler demolished the great edifice of Panbabylonism theory piece by piece. The Panbabylonists had no answer to the criticism put forward in his books Im Bannkreis Babels (1910) and the monumental Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel (1907—13), both of which unfortunately were never translated into English. With the death of one of the movement's leaders, cuneiform philologist Hugo Winckler (1861—1913), Panbabylonism was scientifically dead by World War I and then banished for ever to the lunatic fringe of pseudoscientific writings." Phlogiston was an obsolete scientific theory. Panbabylonism was psuedoscience. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  01:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * fine, it was "banished for ever to the lunatic fringe of pseudoscientific writings" after 1913. This means that anyone arguing "Panbabylonism" in 1920 would be as guilty of pseudoscience as someone arguing for phlogiston in 1790. I recognize that implicit in "Panbabylonism" is the heavy emphasis on Astralkult, not just "biblical mythology is taken from Mesopotamian sources". While biblical mythology is, of course, largely taken from Mesopotamian sources, the thing about Astralkult had, I completely agree, always been slightly mad. --dab (𒁳) 15:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The oldest parts of biblical mythology are undeniably mesopotamian. However it's mostly influenced by ancient canaanite religion. And you have to give it credit for its novel ideas. Monotheism for one.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semitic pages
Re your edit comments on these pages today, the Ancient Semitic Speaking Peoples article was split from Semitic languages, not from Semitic people. So "merging back" would result in a different outcome to the one you are proposing.

The separate question of merging Semitic people and Ancient Semitic speaking peoples has been discussed on the talk page there, so you might find it helpful to review those threads before making your case on the talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * fair point, thank you. I rephrase to the effect that the material split off the languages article should have been merged into the existing people page. --dab (𒁳) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it should've! :) --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  01:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC) My thought is that the current article could be made into an article on "semitic race", which is indeed an obsolete category. However there should be a new article based on ancient semitic speaking peoples renamed to semitic peoples which talks about the ethnolinguistic group, the religion/language/culture of the protosemites, their origins, and their ancient civilizations. And in passing mention modern populations.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome  _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  14:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, the obvious approach (e.g. Iranian peoples vs. Iranid race etc.) --dab (𒁳) 15:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. And Indo-Aryan peoples vs Aryan race. But two users on the talk firmly believe that semitic peoples is a made-up thing that should not be a page.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  23:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * they are wrong, of course, and hopefully, Wikipedia process should not be stalled indefinitely just by people being wrong, but I have to say I don't blame them because "race" is one of the most broken topics on Wikipedia, barring none. Probably an effect of American society being on the brink of a race war, there is no way around the fact that Wikipedia is based in the US and en-wiki is disproportionately affected by US biases and politics. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In proof of wikipedia's cognitive bias I assumed you were American.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * it's true that I am not, but I do hope I would be making exactly the same point if I was, seeing that it has nothing to do with my own person :) --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

To be fair we did invent the internet.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  23:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Note I made edits to Assyria. It's still strongly assyrianist but that's inevitable. At least now it doesn't claim modern religions come from assyrian "star myths",aka panbabylonism. I also found this gem.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  00:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
It appears that you copied or moved text from Christian symbolism into Staurogram. uw-copying Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Oy
Check out this category Category:Assyrian ethnic groups. Yeesh. Stop pushing your spurious assyrian identity on neighboring peoples who happen to be christian and speak aramaic! When you think about it the idea that all middle eastern christians are assyrian in origin is completely ridiculous. Assyrians were a minority in their own empire.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  17:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, it's pathetic. They are far from the only group doing this, but still, the "Assyrians" are a particularly pathological example of this. It's clearly a "First World problem". Syriac Christians are clearly an oppressed group in the Middle East, but then they move to the West, they are no longer oppressed in any shape or form, but then they lose their religious faith and realise that the identity of "Syriac Christians" is inextricably tied to religion. But they still feel they have an identity even after they become secularised, so they have to construct this artificial crypto-ethno-nationalism and lash out at anyone in their own group who isn't 100% on board with it. --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Middle Eastern Christians used to have a primary identity in their religious affiliation- Nestorian, Jacobite, Maronite, Chaldean, Greek Orthodox. However the rise of pan-Arabism and increasing secularization led many groups to seek a distinct ethnic identity in continuity with a pre-Islamic ancient people. Now I'm not saying Assyrians are merely "Christian Arabs", as some Arabs and Kurds say.They are a distinct group which has long been endogamous.But the whole "we are pure-blooded descendants of the oldest civilization on Earth" (many appropriate Sumer) is just fascistic premordialist nonsense. I'm guessing I linked this to you already.Template:History of Assyrian people--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  01:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Phoenicia
Why did you remove the years from Phoenicia in this edit? They even had a source. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * no, man, the reference probably confirms that Byblos was inhabited in the Early Bronze Age, but it's (a) a dead link and (b) has nothing to do with the topic anyway. "Phoenicia" is the term for the Canaanite culture in classical antiquity. If you want to discuss Bronze Age Canaan, there is already an article for that, it's at Canaan. --dab (𒁳) 18:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please
uw-editsummary Eric talk 13:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Any specific article / edit you want to address here? Just slapping a template on my talkpage isn't going to tell me what you want from me. --dab (𒁳) 20:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My post did mention Christ Pantocrator when I placed it via Twinkle. But before posting, I looked at your contributions and saw that you rarely give an edit summary, so you might consider it a general request. It makes things easier for your collaborators here if you provide them. Thanks in advance for doing so. Eric talk 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

On the rare occasion I provide an edit summary it's usually something like "deleted bullshit".Sometimes I include a shout-out to the editor before me, like: "stop adding bullshit".--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice collaborative attitude. Eric talk 03:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * not my attitude. My attitude is that I will give an edit summary if I expect I am doing something controversial or at least non-obvious. Or I will start to give edit summaries on a specific article when challenged. Look, my edit count is in the six figures, I guess somewhere near a quarter million. Yes, many of these are minor, fixing my own typos and so on. But the burden of coming up with a description of what I am doing, just because someone might be watching, even if it takes only one second, would translate to several days full time work over my entire edit history. I try to be cooperative but also efficient. --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, dab, my last comment was directed at MM. I don't want you to have the feeling you're being watched closely: Christ Pantocrator is on my watchlist, I noticed an edit without an edit summary, then looked at the diff out of curiosity, saw that the edit was helpful, then saw your contribution history and didn't see many edit summaries, so I hastily posted the message. I now regret that if it came across as peremptory. I understand your desire to save time by skipping the edit summary step. But that can then cost even more time for others not familiar with your work who might feel compelled to check the edit. A little edit summary can spare someone that time, especially if they've come to know you as someone who's here to do good work. You are a prolific editor, while I am more of a roving copyeditor (nitpicker?); that may explain any high-handedness I show regarding edit summaries. Thanks for all your good work here, and sorry if I came across wrong with the template. Eric talk 12:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it's fine Eric, you had the right to ask of course. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I know. I was being sardonic, not implying my attitude was appropriate. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * everyone's fine. The important thing here is to realize that the guidelines are just that, and that what really counts is WP:ENC, WP:DICK and WP:AGF. Also, too often, WP:FRINGE/WP:DUE, WP:TIGERS and WP:RANDY. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
uw-npa2 Talk/Stalk 00:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not attack you, I suggested you may have a conflict of interest because you are personally invested in the topic. This is a fair point to make, if it was an "attack" it would follow that nobody is allowed to call anyone out of editorial bias. Now I would also point out to you to please WP:DNTTR. --dab (𒁳) 05:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

seljuk empire
hello seljuk empire origin kınık(tribe).kınık and kankalis different two group.. this is False information--Osman bey (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't dump random inscrutable claims on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposal
I'm bothered by the fact that the page for arameans is "aramean identity" while assyrians is "assyrian people". It's like we're indulging one nationalism as legitimate but not the other.The community is very diverse and we let assyrianists dominate the arena because they are politically active in the west. Obviously this is also because of anglo-bias, ie, because of the zeal of British missionaries and 19th century Assyriologists "assyrian" is the favored term for syriacs, (I know syriac refers to a language but I consider it a nuetral term in light of the fact that syrian now refers to a nationality) but it doesn't have to be this way. Most people don't know people calling themselves assyrian exist, nor arameans. In a world of ideas accessible information shapes reality- and wikipedia has chosen a side before the discussion has begun. Basically my proposal is either make the aramean article as assertive as the assyrian or the assyrian one as cautious as the aramean.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  06:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Also, Category:Assyrian_Christians_by_denomination This category needs to die.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  08:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There is one article about this people known as "Assyrian people, also known as Chaldeans, Syriacs, and Arameans". This is a question of WP:NAME. I tried really, really hard to convince people to use a more neutral title, but the "Assyrian" team decided to just gang up and push their preferred solution. The Aramaean identity article is not about the group (which already has its article), its parallel to Assyrian nationalism, not Assyrian people.

The established term for this group is "Syriac Christians". The problem with this only develops after they go to Sweden or the US, decide they are atheists or nonreligious, and suddenly need a new ethnic identifier that doesn't involve the term "Christians" (i.e. the very characteristic that singled them out for 1000 years and prevented them from just blending into the general population of the Levant).

The title "Assyrians" should disambiguate between Assyria ("the Assyirans" overwhelmingly refers to ancient Assyria), Syriac Christians and Assyrian nationalism. "Assyrian people" should be Syriac Christians, or possibly some compromise solution (used by the Canadian census iirc) such as "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs" (or any of the ton of redirects already pointing at the page). I wrote an entire article on this, Terms for Syriac Christians, back in the day when I tried to convince people to look for a reasonable solution. Once it became evident that teh Assyrians were just playing tag-team and were not interested in Wikipedia guidelines, I kind of threw up my hands and decided I had better things to do with my time. --dab (𒁳) 12:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

But that article does focus on Neo-aramaic speakers in northern Iraq. It does not have nearly as much relevance to levantine christians who think themselves aramean, let alone maronites who think themselves phonecian. Syriac christian is not a real ethnic group, all of the neo-aramaic christians in the ME cannot have one common origin (well, unless you count proto-semites) and they never developed a homogenous pan-syriac identity. Each generally thinks the other is part of their group, and while I think its silly to base Assyrian peoplehood on spurious ties to akkad or ashur (rather than very real ties to ninevah), the people called "Assyrians" are a distinct ethnic group which is mostly endogamous. Syriac in my view is useful as a nuetral ethnoreligious/linguistic grouping, but not as a catch-all term. There are distinct communities of neo-aramaic-speaking christians, with distinct dialects and distinct foods and distinct churches, there are many cultural similarities (ie, most of them say "shlama") but these similarities are more a result of a shared language and shared religion and a shared experience under the Islamic powers that be than anything. In the end they can call themselves whatever they want, they'll still be unique ethnic groups, if ones with a history as simple and linear as they'd like to imagine.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  13:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As for the tag team, yeah, the aramean faction is less politically organized. For instance the category "Aramean Wikipedians" was deleted with the justification "there's already an 'Assyrian Wikipedians' category, and the original Arameans don't exist any longer..." And that guy is allowed to delete categories. Of course I agree with you on your proposals, but we'd have to be careful about it. Assyrians can be reasonably called Assyrians (modern), and we'd handle the stuff from the christianization of the neo-assyrian empire and after as history with the caveat that some claim to be descended from akkadians/Old Assyrians and this is a subject of nationalist rather than historical debate. Assyrians percieve any attack on their nationalism as an attack on Assyrians, and we have to recognize that they are a distinct group and not bury them under "assyrian identity". Its not the assyrian that's problematic from a historians perspective, its claims to have a continuous and direct descent from the Old Assyrians. That reminds me, Assyrian continuity needs to be TNTd. We need to make Parpola off-limits.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  13:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with all you say, and this is exactly the kind of topic I would be up for researching. But I find I cannot develop articles on complex topics while at the same time fighting edit-wars against organised trolls. So you have my support, but I doubt I am going to invest substantial effort into this topic. Regarding "continuity", I guess this is similar to our "Panbabylonian disagreement". My position is something like duh, trivially there is continuity. Probably every human alive today is "descended from the ancient Assyrians" genealogically (identical ancestors point). But the distinction between "Aramaeans" and "Assyrians" disappeared before 500 BC, so the modern appellations are just "team names" without any actual semantic content. The reason for the distribution of Neo-Aramaic today is the Neo-Assyrian Empire, because Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian Empire. The question of whether the implied linguistic continuity should be labelled "Aramaean" or "Assyrian" is not meaningful.
 * I readily accept that there is an ethnic difference between Levantine and N Iraqi Christians. It still makes sense to group them under "Syriac Christans", and then develop coverage of subgroups simply based on ethnographic literature. The same way it makes ethnographic sense to group Native Americans in the United States. Nobody claims these are even remotely ethnically related other than via Paleo-Indians 15kya or so. It still makes sense as a starting point before getting into serious ethnographic detail. But this is impossible to do while the flower of their youth is shouting at you from their moms' basements in western suburbs. --dab (𒁳) 06:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The key arguments of panbabylonism have been rejected in mainstream historiography. I showed you lots of sources for that :P I understand your reluctance to take arms against a sea of assyrian nationalists.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * sigh, we agree on the "Panbabylonianism" part I think. It's a semantic problem. You have to be, and remain throughout, aware that "Panbabylonianism"=Astralkult. If you succumb to the suggestive interpretation of "Panbabylonianism"="mostly all taken from Babylon", which the term does not mean, then it also becomes false that it has been rejected.--dab (𒁳) 09:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My interpretation of Panbabylonianism is both AstralKult and Bible-Babel. I think you're wrong about "mostly all taken". For one, that's not what Bible-Babel is about. It's more like "all of it is stolen". For two, the notion that Hebrew religion is Mesopotamian in origin has its roots in defunct hyperdiffusionist theories. The Hebrew religion is Canaanite in origin-it's indigenous to Canaan. This misconception is that the similarities between Mesopotamian and Canaanite religion are due to borrowing or contact. They are actually due primarily to a common origin in Semitic religion- the difference is Assyro-Babylonians recorded their ideas first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs)

Alright. As I said, I am sure we will basically agree, already as we are both ready to be led by the actual evidence. Here is my general view (I am not an ANE scholar, nor has this been an area I invested a lot of effort in, so my view is certainly open to review). --dab (𒁳) 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Astralkult thing is a 19th-century red herring.
 * "Hebrew religion" is Canaanite, already because the Hebrews are Canaanites. The Hebrew Bible gives a valuable albeit heavily filtered/redacted account of "Hebrew religion". The core theology (Yahweh, El, Elohim, etc.) is all Canaanite. <-- this is the part where I agree that "Hebrew religion is Canaanite". This concerns the 8th and 7th centuries BC or so.
 * A lot of mythological elements in the Torah (not the core, perhaps, but much of the most iconic stuff, as in Moses, Joseph, Noah, etc.) is obviously Mesopotamian in origin or inspiration. That's just a pedestrian observation about cultural contact and has nothing to do with "stealing". I do not agree that parallels between, say, Moses and Sargon of Akkad are somehow due to parallel evolution of some Proto-Semitic mytheme. This is not how mythology works. Especially seeing Mesopotamia and the Levant were within easy travelling distance throughout the Bronze Age. This isn't "hyperdiffusionism" in my book ("hyperdiffusionism" would be, e.g. Buddhist influence on the Druids, or stuff of such calibre)
 * Second Temple Judaism (5th century BC) was a project to re-model elements of inherited Hebrew religion after the template of Babylonian religion. The Torah basically consists of Hebrew ("Canaanite") oral tradition heavily edited to conform with Babylonian templates.
 * The entire thing was once again re-interpreted to conform with Greek philosophy (Platonism) in Hellenistic Judaism (3rd century BC). Once the entire Hebrew tradition had been re-cast in Hellenistic terms, Christianity is little more than a logical extrapolation of the process.

Comparative mythology can explain some of the parallels, and others are explained by Mesopotamian influence. (I don't like calling it Babylonian/Assyrian per se since it's just as likely Sumerian. They all sort of blended together in Old Assyria.) I'm not familiar with the Sargon of Akkad parallels, but I'd reckon Moses can be compared to lots of other ancient figures. And Jesus has stunning parallels with Sol Invictus, Dionysis, and Mithra.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  17:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, "Mespopotamian". It just happened to by "Babylonian" in the 6th century BC when the cultural contact was taking place. The "Sargon-Moses" mytheme just concerns the oddly specific "was picked up floating in a river in a reed-basked as a baby". Of course Christ is a grand synthesis of Tammuz-Dionysus-Sol-Invictus, and of course the Church fathers were not only aware of this but perfectly fine with it too. --dab (𒁳) 19:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Never heard the reed basket bit. Oh yes that's very specific. But lets talk about important shit. What in your view is the most psuedohistoric assyria article? In my view Assyrian continuity needs serious work.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  14:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On second though I think it would make sense to start on Assyrians and not use the assyrian nationalist definition of self-identifying chaldeans/arameans as assyrians, but rather to assyrians as a distinct group of neo-aramaic speaking iraqi christians.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  14:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

==Category:Habitat maps has been nominated for discussion==

Category:Habitat maps, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seljuk_Empire
You have recently removed the Persian spelling from the article, there are primary sources for that name from Seljuq era, if you still support removing the Persian spelling, you are expected to take part in the discussion in Talk:Seljuk_Empire. -- Kouhi (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * no, you are expected to cite these primary sources before inserting material. I have no objection to "Persian spellings". I have objections to uncited material, per Wikipedia policy. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Siyasatnama is a book in Persian, written in Seljuq era by Nizam_al-Mulk who himself was the vizier of Seljuq Empire. Is that enough? There's also Khaqani's Diwan which was composed in the Seljuq era. These are two primary sources. Can I use them in the article? -- Kouhi (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm asking because these are primary sources and using primary sources is prohibited in most cases. -- Kouhi (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't understand. Of course it will be enough. What I want you to do is, find a published edition of Siyasatnama, locate the form you are interested in in this edition, and cite the edition with page in a footnote in the Seljuk Empire page. The problem is not that your reference isn't potentially useful. The problem is that you haven't done the required editorial work to properly bring up the citation at the relevant place. You cannot cite "Siyasatnama" as "a work". This work survives in manuscripts, right? So, are you citing a specific manuscript? Which one? which folium? Or, even better, are you citing a scholarly edition of one or even several manuscripts? Very good, then cite it, with its proper bibliographic data, and tell us which page in the edition we you want us to look at. Your primary source would be a specific manuscript. If you tell us you found a manuscript of the work in your garden, yes, we will be kind of puzzled. But if the manuscript has already been edited and published, you are actually citing the edition, i.e. the secondary work of a scholar who has looked at the manuscript. This will be perfectly fine. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Your Good Edits -- and the eternal slithering-in of the bogus syncretism of the ignorant and stupid.
Dab, I come across you after reading part of the articles on Tingri -- articles which put my teeth on edge from the very first sentence. I know nothing about the topic and am not particularly interested in it. I simply bumped into it while paging through Chinese mountains. I am, however, interested in language, meaning, and honesty. As a teenager, I waited eagerly for each successive volume of George Orwell's diaries to come off the press. Some writing simply screams dishonesty. Sadly this is the case with a good deal of Wikipedia. You seem to be doing the right sort of thing and fairly well, and I offer my very best wishes.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you. Surely, you mean Tengri? Or perhaps Tengrism? These are plagued by a small number of persistent "Türkic" nationalist trolls. But I do not see a connection to "Chinese mountains". Perhaps you mean Tingri County? But I do not seem to have edited that page before. --dab (𒁳) 13:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Mongolian studies listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mongolian studies. Since you had some involvement with the Mongolian studies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RekishiEJ (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Moon culture section
Good additions, but they need citing; Moon is a featured article, and an uncited section could jeopardise that.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  20:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

diff. --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, yes? Your additions are uncited. That's what I was saying.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * it took me a minute to figure out what edits you were referring too. It was about 600 edits ago for me. I didn't complain about your not providing context, I just provided the relevant diff for future reference. Afaics, my edits were mostly a re-arrangement of pre-existing material. You are within your rights to intelligently challenge any unreferenced statement of course, regardless of whether it was added by me or not, I don't really see the article being "featured" as having any bearing on that ("featured" status is pretty loosely correlated to actual article quality as far as I can tell) --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey!
I'm trying to finally move the page Semitic people to Semitic race. Care to back me up?--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * of course. Semitic peoples and Semitic people to be disambiguation between Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, Semitic_languages and Semitic race. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll be reverted imminently. :)--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  01:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic subgroups listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ethnic subgroups. Since you had some involvement with the Ethnic subgroups redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist
Would you please add these websites to WP:BLACKLIST? I don't understand why some editors still use that turkicworld.org as a source. It's a personal and nationalistic website full of misrepresented, misleading, mistranslated and falsified sources/contents. For example, There is a falsified version of Angela Marcantonio's works on this website. Compare the Original work "The Indo-European language family: questions about its status" (pdf link) with [ http://web.archive.org/web/20161023065309/http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/MarcantonioA2009IELanguageFamilyEn.htm turkicworld's version]. It's funny how this turkicworld guy adds "Türk" and "Türkic" to every content which he falsified/misrepresented/mistranslated them. Plus, that website is related to Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. It seems same person (or a team) is behind them. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and its mirror
 * (it looks like a sister website, very similar content)


 * This guy is still here? He has been doing this for the best part of a decade now. Your request is certainly reasonable and I have gone ahead and added the sites to the blacklist
 * I am not using my admin buttons much these days, so I may be ignoring some red tape here (my admin account dates to 2004, when it was "no big deal" and you were trusted to just do whatever is good for the health of the project). If my addition is reverted you will just have to take the bureaucratic route.
 * --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. Seems he will never abandon English WP. His SPI case started since March 2012 and people still report him and his sockpuppet army. I think he's a paid pov-pusher and ethno-centrist troll, because he's very active outside WP too (YouTube, anthropology/racialist/HBD websites, history forums, and even gaming communities). He spams "turkicworld" stuffs everywhere. Looks like a nationalistic agenda (pro-Turkic, anti-European, anti-IE, pseudo-science, pseudo-history and racist). Unfortunately, there are other editors (not related to him) who think that his plague website is a reliable work and they use his materials on En-WP articles. Blacklist is useful, but I hope people don't try to copy-paste his texts. Because I encountered them many times. Recent examples were on Kanasubigi, Islamicisation and Turkicisation of Xinjiang and Kingdom of Qocho. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Finally getting to this
Please help me with overhauling Assyrian continuity. I have already done the intro with sourcing. In general we need to delete the bullshit "they always considered themselves assyrians" and the ridiculous characterization of Westerners denying their indigenous identity when it was westerners who gave it to them. We need to have a section on how the term assyria was used- geographically, endonym, exonym, referring to mosulites, etc. Once again PLEASE HELP--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  05:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure this should even be a different page from Assyrian nationalism. The question is very interesting at its core, iirc it boils down to the similarity of the names "Syria" and "Assyria", which have been conflated since the effing Early Iron Age, so there is very little point in "resolving" the question by studying Bronze Age etymologies of the names. This "continuity" crap is just classical "antiquity frenzy", overplaying the actual continuity you will find in pretty much every place in the Old World. If you were so inclined, you could make the very same argument about "Swiss paleolithic continuity". The Swiss argument is not not made because it would be any less true but simply because people are less desperate to make it. --dab (𒁳) 05:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. It's like saying the modern Britons are ancient Britons because the names are the same! We should merge. But seriously, I'm going to need you to do a bit of work here too. :P--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have this bottom up approach, where I research the details for the sub-articles before I go on to tackle the fought-over "main" articles. But do let me know if you need me for something specific. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, then a good starting place is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, which Assyrian nationalists like to say is directly descended from Akkadian and emphasize "Akkadian inflections", forgetting that Aramaic in general, as well as Hebrew, have Akkadian words. Another good starting point is Simo Parpola and the Melammu Project. You may not have heard of him but he's a crazy person used as the prime source for Assyrianists.Without his citations articles on Assyrians would be near-bereft of psuedohistory.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  09:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

MESOPOTAMIA!
I'm trying to fix our history of Mesopotamia, which I now find problematic. I believe it confuses Assyrian civilization with Sumero-Akkadian civilization, and Assur with Assyria. This is something to do research on- because most of our sources are very old and date to the first or second waves of Assyriology. We have based our estimates on the age of Assur on archeology when Assur the Assyrian city was built on an older city. This would be like saying Judah began in the Bronze Age because that's when Jerusalem began- and yes, the Assyrian king list dates to 2500, but many don't believe the older kings can be seriously called "Assyrian"- ie it's a retroactive continuity. I'm going to recommend you some google books readings, modern ones on the history of Mesopotamia/Assyria. We need attention from an expert, and right now it seems our "experts" are "Assyrian" amateur historians. Again, please help and edit these pages. To-do:
 * Merge Assyrian continuity to Assyrian nationalism
 * Delete history of the Assyrian people and awful template
 * Priority articles:
 * Assyria
 * Terms for Syriac Christians
 * every period of Assyrian history- remove references to "assyrian people", frame any references to modern assyrians as a modern ethnoreligious group indigenous to the assyrian homeland region.
 * pages on modern assyrian culture. remove or reliably source claims to possess elements of ancient Assyrian culture, ie the language and religion
 * Battle of Ninevah- this is big because Assyrians try to downplay the destruction of Assyrian civilization and pretend its a biblical myth. Also they like saying the bible is assyrian (hence need to fix panbabylonism and make it about what its actually about- the astralkult and the bibel-babel controversy, but I know that doesn't bother you for some reason)
 * delete references to parpola and treat Ancient and Modern Assyrians: A Scientific Analysis and other Assyrianist sources very carefully.

Another thing to look out for is attempts to make assyria near-equivalent to greater "mesopotamian" civilization. a key part of assyrianism is "national pride" at the greatness of assyria- but when it talks about that greatness it almost invariably claims Sumerian and Babylonian civilization as Assyrian. Wikipedia makes it seem as if assyrian civilization precedes akkadian and babylonian merely because of the assyrian king list which lists AKKADIAN kings in assur. The name Assyria was coined by a babylonian, before it was called subartu. Sorry about the disjointed ranting. Basically, two issues: 1. fake continuity 2. shitty chronology of civilizations and periods. I propose we treat mesopotamian history this way: Sumer in the south, then Akkad in the north. and sumero-akkadians built assur and its a city-state until the united sumero-akkadian empire ("old assyrian period"), division into assyria and babylon... etc.

This book is a must-read. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  17:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Mars symbol
I don't really understand why you changed that article to be a redirect to a redirect... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Because, developing the Mars symbol and Venus symbol pages, I noted that most of it was content overlap copy-pasted from astronomical symbol and astrological symbol. The history of the symbols should be discussed in context. After substracting that, there was very little content indeed to justify a standalone page. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood your question. Never mind, it was just a typo. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Shield of the Trinity
I don't know why you made the edit you did on Shield of the Trinity. First, I doubt whether "econverso" is even a word. Second, as explained on the linked image page File:Trinity knight shield.jpg, according to the Michael Evans journal article, the text in the links connecting the outer nodes to each other reads "Non est • nec e converso", while the text along the links connecting the center node to the outer nodes reads "Est et e converso" -- and of the two, the "Est e converso" text is more significant (the bidirectionality of the outer links wouldn't surprise anyone, while the bidirectionality of the central links might be a little surprising to some). AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * sorry, I only noted the nec e converso, I didn't see that the est also has e converso. It was probably fine as it stood. For the Middle Latin spelling econverso see e.g. here --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * as for "surprising", I don't think that given "A is B" the statement "B is A" can be considered surprising (but neither is "B is not A" given "A is not B", the surprise is entirely in the lack of transitivity, i.e. "A is not C" given that "A is B and B is C"). --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann -- Google Books doesn't work well on my home computer; I'll try to view the link later on another computer. However, the phrase "e converso" makes sense as a preposition which governs the ablative case ("ex") followed by a neuter participle in the ablative case ("conversum" nominative, "converso" ablative).  As a single word, it doesn't make much sense (though apparently sometimes abbreviated into that form).
 * Also, the surprise you're referring to is that the diagram as a whole is inconsistent, if the assertions are interpreted in simplest logical form. However theologically, "the Son is not the Holy Spirit" and the other five negatives of that type are all rather uncontroversial.  By contrast, some who would accept "the Holy Spirit is God" would be a little surprised by "God is the Holy Spirit".  That's why a few forms of the diagram have the EST consistently going toward the center, even if the text has to be mostly upside-down (see File:Trinidad-Anglican-Episcopal-Coat-of-Arms.svg etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The three texts on the perimeter links unequivocally read econverso rather than e converso (i.e. there is no space). The texts on the radiating links are, as the description for the image file notes, "obscured"; but on the bottom (vertical) link the letter e and the scribal abbreviation for con are both quite clear, again with no space between them. I would suggest that the caption is changed back to econverso. GrindtXX (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * GrindtXX: the spacing may make it look like "econverso", but "econverso" is not really a word in the Latin language -- as the manuscript scribe and most of the original readers of the manuscript probably would have been aware. It was this shared background knowledge which made it possible to abbreviate by omitting word space, but a literalistic transcription would convey a misleading impression to modern readers who do not share such knowledge.  I don't see how adding a word space is too different from resolving the scribal abbreviations... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Econverso may not be good classical Latin, but it did have currency in the middle ages. It appears in Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus (2002 edn.) as an adverb meaning "conversely"; and the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, under convertere, cites six instances of econverso in use (from Adam of Balsham, Michael Scot, William of Ockham, John Gower, and two archival sources), as well as others that do split the words (see here). When you get to open Dbachmann's Google Books link, you will see that that is quoting a passage from Stephen Langton that uses the word three times within a discussion of the nature of the Trinity. I would see adhering to the spacing in a quotation as equivalent to adhering to archaic or eccentric spelling. GrindtXX (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal guys. GrindtXX is right, econverso is perfectly fine in Middle Latin. AnonMoos is also right, you wouldn't spell it that way in classical Latin. It's up to the editor how to normalize manuscript spelling. Both choices, e converso and econverso are valid, you would just try to make sure that your overall approach within your edition is consistent. I didn't mean to start a controversy on a non-issue, and I am happy with spelling it either way. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Dbachmann -- When I viewed the Google books link on a library computer, I got "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book". That was probably what was also happening on my home computer (only the message didn't display too clearly there).

GrindtXX -- You may have some valid points, but I don't really see the "Shield of the Trinity" article as a suitable place for displaying raw medievalisms / scribalisms (or for explaining them at length), since the many of the readers of that article will have difficulty enough with clear basic simple Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter, it was just an example of a scholarly (Ashgate Publishing) work on Middle Latin which normalized nec e converso as nec enconverso that I googled. I'm just saying that it's in use, not that it's the only right way of doing it.
 * On your point to GrindtXX, I agree, and I suppose the underlying issue here is that we have no decent coverage on Middle Latin anywhere. We seem to have a fair summary at Medieval Latin, plus there is Scribal abbreviation which is also fair enough and useful, but that's still very limited considering this is an entire field of study. --dab (𒁳) 06:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate
I must ask that you immediately revert your edit to Pizzagate to the prior consensus version - you edited through protection against the clearly expressed consensus of editors that the word "false" or "debunked" must be in the disambiguation page. Your interpretation of policy is not supported by that consensus, and if you refuse to self-revert, I will open a thread on WP:ANI, as your edit violates the page protection policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate
Hi. I have reverted your edit to Pizzagate, as the page is under full protection with a request to seek prior consensus for any changes. I'm sure you didn't realise that at the time, but admins should not edit through full protection to make their own preferred changes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * you are right, I thought it was semiprotected. It's been a long time since I have even seen a fully protected article (and should know better than tread in parts where there are such). --dab (𒁳) 18:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus
Hey. I saw you said that there didn't seem to be consensus at the Pizzagate article, and I can certainly understand why you'd say that. However, if you take a close look at the discussions (assuming you have a few months to spare wading through them all), you'll see that the extensive arguing consists of a small number of editors making the same (poor) arguments over and over again, for the most part. Furthermore, the disruption caused by the disagreement there seems to be emanating purely from the "it's not debunked" side of the argument.

The general consensus seems to be that this article should be written somewhat differently owing to the combination of divisive claims, popularity and the nature of the accusations therein. A number of reliable sources agree that the raison d'être of this CS is entirely to slander the Clintons. Given that, a number of editors (myself among them, for now) agree that our BLP policy means we should write the article in such a way as to not give any credence to them. There seems to be some intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP here with respect to the outrageous nature of the claims in this CS. Namely, that it's such an extraordinary claim as to require extraordinary evidence. Naturally, the only evidence ever provided thus far is conjecture. These are, of course, my own words, but as they have been informed by a week or more of participation in the discussion going on there, I'm pretty sure I'm doing justice to the views of the other editors there, as well. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  19:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * first, I apologize again for barging in like I did. I don't have any real interest in this, I thought I was just fixing a minor tone issue.
 * I certainly agree that this thing is "debunked" in the sense you say it is. My entire point is that it isnt encyclopedic to say "X is a debunked conspiracy theory". As I said, the "Moon landing hoax" is much, much, much more solidly debunked than this recent... thing. And yet the article correctly doesn't open with "The Moon landing hoax is a debunked conspiracy theory" simply because that isn't an encyclopedic or objective way of putting it, because "debunked" works more as a slur than as an objective statement. That's really all I am trying to say, hope this is making sense.
 * So, the point here is not a factual disagreement, but rather the spirit in which the articles should be written, or the vocabulary we choose to represent controvesies. I doubt there is "consensus" on this tbh, because I know the way "consensus" is spoofed in politically charged articles like this. That's also why I have long stopped even trying to touch topics of this kind, so do with my input whatever you think is best. --dab (𒁳) 20:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no disagreement on factual grounds. I never got that impression from you. I also agree that it's less encyclopedic to describe it the way it currently is described. I think one thing worth pointing out is that I don't believe this state (in which this article should be treated differently) is a permanent one. When attention dies down and there are fewer editors trying to shift the POV of the article into portraying this as a actual controversy instead of a manufactured (and frankly, ridiculous) one, then you can count on me to support a change to a more ideal wording. Mostly because, at that point, wikipedia's goal of informing the reader won't be undermined by the current schadenfreude. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, this is my hope too. Either attention will die down and it will be possible to treat this as one of many WP:FRINGE pages. Or, I suppose less likely, evidenceis corrobated and it moves out of WP:FRINGE. I do expect that attention will die down and the page will become more easy to maintain. At present, the way I undertand it (and the reason why this even came to my attention), it is impossible to judge this on its own merit, because it is in essence a proxy war related to Trump, i.e. if you are pro-Hillary you will think this is "fake" and if you are pro-Trump you will be more willing to think there is "evidence", not because of any inherent interest in child trafficking or the like, but simply because of the conclusions you have drawn from the failure of the media to report objectively. If you have good evidence that the media will lie if they have an incentive to, you will, as a rational actor, be much more reluctant to accept anything is "debunked" simply because the media tells you so, regardless of the actual truth value of the topic under discussion.
 * At the core, this is part of the discussion on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the mainstream media, even if it isn't phrased in this way. Therefore, because the credibility of the mainstream media is the real question, it isn't useful to show it has been "debunked" by the mainstream media. Wikipedia has no way of solving this on its own because we depend on "reliable sources", which at this point most certainly does not include the poular/mass/mainstream media, but until somebody writes about this academically, we simply have no sources to go on.
 * I am saying, we cannot cover this properly because we are part of it, as part of the problem of the circularity of "what are reliable sources". So there is no satisfactory solution at this point, we just have to wait for proper research to be done on whatever is going on in American politics atm. This will take ten years at least I imagine, and the research cannot be done by involved parties, i.e. by Americans (or, at least, Americans with a political agenda). --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You make some really good points there, especially about this really being about the reliability of the mainstream media. And your conclusion, while not necessarily the way I might phrase it, is a good description of the problem. Given the outlandish nature of these claims, I have hope that interest will die down soon (except, of course, among those most devoted to defending or attacking the Clintons, whom I hope are a very small segment of the population), long before the issue of the reliability of MSM can be settled in the public consciousness. I'm already seeing a bit of a railroad effect, with a current proposal to rename the article "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" put up in response to a (much more reasonable, IMHO) proposal to rename the article to "Pizzagate". The rationales given are more of the same "we must emphasize that this is wrong!", which seems to me to be true, but already accomplished. Further pushes to denigrate the subject don't seem to me to be improving the article, but weakening it.
 * But of course, there's nothing to do but 'fight the verifiable-objective-and-encyclopedic fight', as it were. I hope the backlash to your edit and argument didn't sour you too much; there's really quite a bit of genial discussion going on, it just tends to get drowned out (and occasionally tainted) by the bickering. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Baba Yara Stadium page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=754565201 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F754565201%7CBaba Yara Stadium%5D%5D Ask for help])

China (cultural region) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China (cultural region). Since you had some involvement with the China (cultural region) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Timrollpickering 01:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Malformed references on the Ibn Khaldun page?
I thought you should know, this edit of yours from September seems to have introduced references that aren't displaying right. —suzukaze (t・c) 11:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know, I think I've fixed it now. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Godefroy Durand
, this article mentions Godefroy Durand (born 1832; died later than 1890) was a French draughtsman and engraver. has other information. Since you created the article you might have more information on the specific details on birth, place and nationality, and adapt accordingly. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. Commons claims he was British and was born "18.." (consistent with 1832) and died 1895 (consistent with "later than 1890"). My information is simply taken from the MB page linked. This seems to be the best "source" we have at this point, it's not like commons feels compelled to cite any sort of references for its "Creator" pages.

VIAF has the following information, collated from various online repositories (without any particular credibility):
 * Durand, Godefroy, 1832-187. [Sudoc ABES, France  National Library of France]
 * Durand, Godefroy 1832-post 1890 [ISNI,  National Library of Poland]
 * Durand, Godefroy 1832-1895 [German National Library]
 * Durand, Godefroy (French painter and draftsman, born 1832) [Getty Research Institute]

There seems to be consensus on "born 1832", and uncertainty regarding the year of death, with "post 1890" the most credible. He seems to have been Belgian by birth, active in France before 1870, and active in Britain after 1870, in which sense he is a "British" or "Victorian" artist. His life after 1890 seems to be completely unknown, and "1895" is probably just a misadaptation of "post-1890" (misinterpreted as "died at some point in the 1890s"). This reference has "1832-c.1910". --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Greek (Vulgata
Hey Dbachmann. I think you're recent editing, with a note on top of the Psalm pages where numbering differences occur, is a good idea. But, at least to my eyes the expression "Greek (Vulgata)" looks like it might imply that the Vulgate is written in Greek. Would you object if I switched the wording on both posts to say "Greek / Vulgate" instead? Unless I'm misreading your intent somehow and there's a good reason for the phrasing being the way it is. I know my way around the Hebrew psalms a lot better than the Greek/Latin Psalms, so I thought I'd check first. Regardless, it's good to see that someone else is paying some attention to the individual-Psalm articles. Cheers!Alephb (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting at all, and I see the problem. Of course I just wanted to express that the so-called "Greek numbering" is the one used by the Vulgata, including all the medieval manuscript images used to decorate the Psalms articles, in the hope that people might pay more attention to placing these on the correct page. --dab (𒁳) 14:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you my sockpuppet?
Please let me know if you are. I knew I had one somewhere but I've lost it. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * they have found us out my preciouss... always burrowing, prodding, nasty hobbitses. --dab (𒁳) 18:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

article transfer to Indo-Iranians peoples
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Iranians&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 14:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say, please make a complete sentence. --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sepandarmazgan
...falls on the 18th, right? This edit feels like vandalism to me, but the longstanding date was also unsourced. Can't look for a source right now so I figured I should run it by someone with a clue. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, we should just tag it with cn either way. --dab (𒁳) 18:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Man, I miss the days when Wikipedia used to be the "encyclopedia that slashdot wrote". I am well aware that online harassment can be a real problem, but now we have a "Board" who is so oblivious as to write with no apparent sarcasm in the vocabulary of pure Orwellianism (Board's Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces). They might as well have written "we are meddling busybodies and you will have to route around us if you are going to get anything done". No, not "as well", of course, as that would have exhibited self-awareness. I am an old fart by internet standards, I was socialized online in 1993, and I am not going to pick a fight with these people. I'll just try to keep working on the encyclopedia as long as they manage not to completely break the system, and quietly hope that there will be enough people with an engineer mindset working on this to counterbalance the growing ballast of people with an apparatchik mindset that are invariably going to accrete in any bureaucracy. It wasn't avoidable that the project was going to be poisoned by this. It's still sad to see this has happened. --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing I do conclude from this is that I will strongly recommend people stop donating to Wikimedia in the future. Wikipedia needs money for hosting costs. And that should be it. If there is any leftover to pay for Boards and Committees and their "community advocacy", this means that the Foundation has definitely too much money, and needs to be starved of it. As soon as we get server outages again and every cent has to go into paying for infrastructure, the project may also regain its sanity as a grass-roots community effort. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Safe spaces? All the more reason to be glad that I stay away.  (Season's Greetings, old friend!) rudra (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * happy ... Equirria, rudra :)

Szabla
I revert you for the reasons explained on talk, TL;DR - we need more discussion first, because if a move is needed, we have to consider some other names / splits / merger too, first. It's a complicated mess. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the article talk page. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

‎Wikiquote
Hi Dab, I would like to cordially invite you to join Wikiquote as a contributor. Will you be able to start a new Wikiquote article on The New Cambridge History of India. Surely you have already read some of those books and as such it should be a nice intellectual goal to set for 2017. If you are unsure how to proceed you can look for my creation q:Millennium Prize Problems as guidance which is basically a series of mathematical problems as I am sure you are already aware. Some redlinks (there) which might interest you include: Vijaynagar, Mughal, Rajput, Deccan, Punjab, Maratha and other q:Category:States of India. Solomon7968 12:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bovis scale for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bovis scale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bovis scale until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I find it remarkable that you would create an article about such a highly esoteric matter, without adding any of the reservations present in the variant of this article in German, while a discussion on the talk page of Daniele Ganser and in fact the whole article are deemed unnecessary. lmaxmai (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this was ten (10) years ago. German Wikipedia didn't even mention the term at the time. I came across it, wanted to look it up, and noted that Wikipedia was unaware of it, so I tried to quickly research it. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary formatting
Please know the formatting policies, despite being in Wiktionary for thirteen years. Check especially یارا for example, see some of the things I've done there. – AWESOME meeos ！ *  (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * yeah, I haven't really spent thirteen years on Wiktionary, the prevalent passive-aggressive attitude of editors put me off during a number of years. My impression had been that the atmosphere had generally improved, so I started contributing a little more recently.


 * I spent several hours researching a quite difficult word. You appear to have done some copyediting, some of it deteriorating the information I had given. Then you inserted the comment "cleanup Everything. This is atrocious". This really reminds me of the good old days of Wiktionary with ocd gatekeepers obsessing about template formats and ill-advised guidelines (often misrepresented as "policy") but completely ignoring quality of content.


 * I can hope that you represent an archaism in the project, but if the old attitude is coming back I'll just stay away for a few more years. As will probably most of the editors who could contribute actual expertise. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's all fixed now :-) – AWESOME meeos ！ *  (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 03:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please forgive Awesomemeeos's behavior. He is not representative of Wiktionary at large and his way of interaction has been recognized as problematic multiple times. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read the situation. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD:Godwulf
I note from the article history that in 2012 you tried to convert the article Godwulf into a redirect. Since you might then be considered an 'involved' editor, I am notifying you that I have initiated an AfD for this article at Articles for deletion/Godwulf. Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Hindu-Arabic numerals
Db-csd-notice-custom WWGB (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, please take care who you template. I commend you for dealing with copy-paste moves, but I am just the guy who created the redirect back in 2006, no need to tell me about it. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Tesla
Hello. If you didn't notice this topic, here's a link. It might be helpful to you. . Also, don't mind the people pushing Serbian POV. Tesla was born in Croatia, them ignoring sources won't change that. Here's the link:  . 141.136.223.49 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit is correct. Tesla was born in Kingdom of Croatia which was then a part of Austrian Empire. Everyone agrees he was born in Smiljan. Smiljan was then a part of Kingdom of Croatia. Kingdom of Croatia was in that time separated on "civilian" and "military" administration. The source says everything there is to know: "After many pleas from Jelecic, in 1850 the King's proclamation, which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers, was finally announced...For Military Frontier, the King decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." Croatia,Slavonia and Military Frontier constitute a single land - Kingdom of Croatia. However Kingdom of Croatia has disaggregated provincial (Croatia,Slavonia) and military administration (Military Frontier). While it is correct to say that Tesla was born in Military Frontier, it is also correct that he was born in Kingdom of Croatia. It is not correct to say that Tesla was not born in Croatia, but he was born in Military Frontier, because Military Frontier was a part of Croatia. I referenced a link to the source with Tesla's statement "I was born in Croatia". With this sources there isn't much to discuss, but if you continue, you'll find how difficult it is to deal with some people who "guard" the idea that Military Frontier is something completely separated from Croatia, while they will provide no sources. 141.136.223.49 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not with the facts. Yes, Tesla was a Serb born in the Kingdom of Croatia. The problem is with (a) Serbian editors who want to avoid all mention of "Croatia", (b) Croatian editors who want the article to read "Croatia, Croatia, Croatia, and btw, Croatia", and (c) the effect the two groups have on each other. The solution would be to either grow up and act like adults, or alternatively take a step back and let non-Serbian non-Croats do the job of presenting the very simple facts of the matter. Of course neither is going to happen, and I have learned to be relaxed about this. --dab (𒁳) 06:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, relax and Tesla will lead the way. ---Sluzzelin talk  07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the birthplace per sources I had referenced. That's an established fact and no one can dispute that. However, I still haven't found any credible primary sources about Tesla's ethnicity. I don't think that the problem can be solved by asking others to grow up. It can be only solved by credible secondary sources that are based on primary sources. Even contemporary newspaper articles that I've been posting on talk page (and that they have been deleting) are claiming Tesla to be Croat/Serb. People will continue to argue until we have sources that we can all agree upon. I tried to start a discussion where we could start dealing with the question by gathering all sources on Tesla's ethnicity, but some people didn't want that so they have banned that discussion. You can see it here:. Look at what the sources claim: Serb, Croat, Austrian, Slavic, Hungarian, Yugoslav, Romanian.

Look at what one editor said: "Stop cherrypicking". I was trying to gather all sources on one place and I was cherrypicking? Isn't cherrypicking exactly the opposite, to gather only the sources that benefit your opinion?

So, yeah, they don't even allow sources to be posted on the talk page. I guess that some people could draw their own conclusions from the sources, instead of blindly reading the article, so the best thing is to hide the sources from them. ;) 89.164.196.4 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I attempted to introduce into the article the fact that Tesla was born in Croatia, and I was reverted. I did not attempt to discuss his ethnicity, afaict it is undisputed he was an ethnic Serb, descended from immigrants that came to Croatia one or two century earlier from the general region of Montenegro (maybe in the 1680s? I did not research it and made no claim either way).
 * It seems uncontroversial to me to call him an ethnic Serb as (a) his father was an orthodox priest, and (b) he joined a Serbian student club when he was in university.
 * This is what the article has, and I have no problem with it and I never even tried to discuss this. So I have to ask why you are taking this up with me. The only thing I complained about was the refusal to mention the fact that he was born and grew up in Habsburg Croatia. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tesla's connections to Croatia are banned from the article by a certain group of editors. But that doesn't matter much with sources published on talk page. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusion from that sources. In my opinion the sources are decisive, so there's not that much to discuss. However, your attempt was stopped with bad faith in mind, in my opinion. There were indeed numerous discussions about Tesla's birthplace, but there are new sources which weren't reviewed back them. The most important is the source which tells us about the kings proclamation. Then there's the Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia.
 * Sorry to say, but Tesla's ethnicity is very much disputed. Orthodox faith does not mean a Serbian ethnicity, nor there is a such source that claims that. Funny how some editors have pushed that as an established fact. Even the source which would claim that in the 19th century the most orthodox people were Serbs, that we could not use to prove that Tesla was a Serb. That would be synthesis. Was there a Croatian or Montenegrin student club, but he preferred Serbian? Even in that case we can't deduce his ethnicity without synthesis. It far too subjective to deduce his ethnicity by the student club he joined, song he wished on his funeral and so on, and that's exactly the problem and the cause of all disputes. Until real sources are found the disputes will persist. I tried to search for the real sources. I found 19th century newspaper articles claiming Tesla to be both Croat/Serb (you can see them in the history of talk page as they are deleting them constantly). So even then his ethnicity was disputed. It seems that Tesla was a supporter of Yugoslavia so he didn't want to declare himself as one or another. He thought that all south slavs are one and the same nation. According to that we should call Tesla a yugosalv-american. I could find numerous sources to confirm that was his opinion. By declaring him as a Serbs the article actually goes against his own opinions, as he had never declared himself to be a Serb nor Croat. Serbians are very rigid to declare Tesla to be Serb as they are using him as their brand.
 * So to solve all the disputed, I tried to find real sources/documents that would speak of Tesla's nationality/ethnicity. Unfortunately that's was too hard and with such bad faith from other editors I didn't want to waste my time. I researched consensuses from US and Austrian Empire. I found a ship manifest from when Tesla emigrated to US. He's mentioned there as Sweedish, but he didn't fill that by himself so there was an obvious confusion. Maybe there would be more info on his immigration papers. It would be great to find those, or to find tesla on US censuses.There's also an Austrian census that had "ethnicity" column but that was before Tesla's time. It would be great to find Tesla's father on that census. So, as you see there are documents that can be found, but no one has the time to do that, and until that is done, the disputes will persist. Well, not that much because a group of editors managed to push pro-Serbian POV to the article and they block everyone who tries to temper with that, as they did with you. Basically, everyone who tries to question their POV is one against five of them so he stands no chance. They are discussing in bad faith and ignoring sources, some of them are directly lying and using personal attacks. For instance this post goes against Tesla's statement and the secondary source which directly quotes the kings proclamation, but that doesn't matter to that editor. His own opinion matters more.  141.138.51.93 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry if you are not interested. I contacted you because you were worked over like me and other editors by the same group of people. Ok, good luck to you. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.51.93 (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * oh, I am interested, I am just trying to see both sides of a dispute. Also I spent a lot of time with this kind of problem back in 2007 or so. I still support Wikipedians sinking their time into fixing nationalist problems, but I also feel that I have done my bit and then some. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That kind of problems can only be fixed with sources. Well, even that isn't enough to some editors who would really like if the history happened the way they imagine it. Let's take Tesla's birthplace problem for example. There were many pointless discussions ans a lot of time wasted, yet nothing was accomplished until I found good primary sources (Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia). Even then, some pro-Serbian editors were trying to claim that Tesla was not born in Croatia, against his own statement. That's not surprising when every historian in Serbia is saying so. Funny how no one of that historians mentions Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia. Then they managed to use Wikipedia rules in bad faith, so they claimed that we can't believe Tesla's statement. He might have lied...or so. Although this is technically true, it's done in bad faith in my opinion. It's against Occam's razor principle. They can not claim that Tesla lied/didn't mean/didn't know where was he born or that he was mistaken. That's a too elaborate to claim without a source that would back that. Ok, so I accepted that and I invested a lot more time to battle with their main argument, that Tesla was born in Military Frontier which was not a part of Croatia, but a separate entity. I spent days investigating four sources to prove that Military Frontier was a part of Croatia, and I finally found a great secondary source that quotes the king's proclamation about the status of Croatia and Military Frontier at that time. It directly says that Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land. However, as you saw, even that wasn't enough for some editors who were still claiming to you in your discussion, that Military Frontier is something different than Croatia, against Tesla's statement and against king's proclamation. This is in my opinion done in bad faith. They did not point you to see the sources for yourself as I did in my initial post here on your talk page. They did not want to discuss. They wanted to get rid of you. They also did one more thing in bad faith. The source with the kings proclamation was unknown at the time we had a RfC on Tesla's birthplace. So there's a basis for another RfC, but no one of them is going to open it, since they are happy with their viewpoint in the article. They are ignoring the strongest source. In my opinion we should have a new RfC on Tesla's birthplace. You asked why I'm taking this with you. I don't know why, but I took up the job to inform everyone about the sources, since they are trying to hide them. That's not an easy job to do. I don't want to bore anyone that's not interested to tackle this issue, and most people aren't. Well, that's probably better, because some issues can't be solved without proper sources and I know how hard is to find sources on Tesla's ethnicity/nationality. My contribution here are the sources on Tesla's birthplace. In my opinion that issue is now properly solved.


 * I saw that you tried to tackle with Tesla's nationality, but I think that your view on that topic is a bit simplistic. For example, I found sources that are claiming that Austro-Hungary had national and local citizenship. Another thing is that Austro-Hungary appeared to the outside countries as "Austria". Everyone who went abroad was an "Austrian citizen", although they could be Hungarian. So Tesla's statement that he is disowning Austrian citizenship doesn't mean much. He could have had Hungarian national citizenship, but he would still disown Austrian citizenship. There's also a local citizenship and the matter is a bit more complex when you start reading about how citizenship was arranged withing Austro-Hungary. Well, a lot of relations were a bit complicated withing Austro-Hungary.   141.136.246.1 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Unprotection of Celts


You protected this article quite some time ago. Would you mind decreasing to PC1 or unprotecting? --Izno (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, I'm not watching it. I guess a reasonable rule of thumb is that if you are reducing protection you should also watch the article for some time to get a feeling if it begins to deteriorate more rapidly. --dab (𒁳) 07:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't unprotect it, which is why I'm asking you. :D --Izno (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the Celts article is on a topic that will continue to benefit from indefinite semiprotection. IPs who have ideas for improvement can use editsemiprotect. The last time the article was unprotected was in the fall of 2010. During that period it had as many as 50 bad edits a month. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I do not have authority over "my" protection just because I happened to click the button historically. If you want wider admin attention for this, just post it to Requests for page protection (which I think is also used for requests for unprotection). --dab (𒁳) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:UNPROTECT requires I ask the protecting admin first if he is still active however long ago the original protection may have been, probably out of some sense to avoid a admins taking contravening administrative action. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, sorry, this explains it. This is a stupid rule imho and "unwikilike", but then I am a fossil and would probably consider most of Wikipedia "unwikilike" by now. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The kind of vandalism that I can see looks routine (or, at least in one case, essentially genre-warring). I won't push the case, but as it is, there's currently a semi-prot-edit-request on the talk page which is so-far unserviced in the past week (mind you, it has seen some discussion). --Izno (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Celts" will always attract stupid or vandalistic edits, and in my opinion it can remain semiprotected indefinitely. This is just my opinion and I have no problem with being overruled, that is, as long as the process of "overruling" is transparent and ostensibly weighing pros and cons by looking at the actual evidence. I make no pretense of remaining involved in or keeping track of the countless articles I may have semiprotected over the years. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Üetliberg
There is currently some confusion as to whether the name of this article should be spelled with or without an umlaut, with the first sentence of the text comprehensively contradicting the article name. I have requested advice at Talk:Üetliberg. As you have previously (a very long time ago) commented on this subject, I'm making you aware of this, in case you wish to contribute. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Image description
Hi Dbachmann. A few years ago, you made edit to an image description. While the image source indeed states it depicts Muhammad, I was wondering where you got "prohibiting intercalation" from. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question, I think it was in the description at bnf.fr where the image came from, but I cannot be sure now, this will have to be researched (or treated as unsubstantiated). --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A few hours of browsing later and I've come across the original page on Commons. With some help of an 1879 English translation, I could pinpoint what the page was discussing: intercalation before Islam, its prohibition and an introduction to the Indian calendar. The illustration is positioned specifically in the middle of a line quoting Muhammad, so I'd say the description is pretty much correct :) --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, please make a note of that for future reference! Thanks -- --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Homosexual people has been nominated for discussion
Category:Homosexual people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Medieval homosexual people has been nominated for discussion
Category:Medieval homosexual people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Medieval Asia listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Medieval Asia. Since you had some involvement with the Medieval Asia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hunza people
Dab, can you please look at this section of the article and help determine which links need to go, some of which you also previously stated are unproven. That whole "Alexander" claim, you know.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it so you don't have to worry.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kosovo (UNMIK)
Template:Kosovo (UNMIK) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What Wikipedia Is. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unprotection of Template:History of Armenia
This template was protected by you almost 10 years ago over a banned user edit warring the template. It's very likely that the user in question has left Wikipedia some time after the protection was made. Is it possible for you to unprotect the page? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:German tribes has been nominated for discussion
Category:German tribes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Lists of all Georgian monarchs listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lists of all Georgian monarchs. Since you had some involvement with the Lists of all Georgian monarchs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Rama Setu (Ramayana)
Hi, I'm Atsme. Dbachmann, thanks for creating Rama Setu (Ramayana)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article needs references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Languages of Europe
We were editing Languages of Europe at the same time. When I saved it, I may have zapped several of your insertions of the word "Western". It's probably safer for me to let you fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'm mostly done with my project on this page now. --dab (𒁳) 06:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sumerian deities list
Hello! I noticed that, back in 2005, you added the image at right to Wikimedia Commons of a cuneiform tablet listing the names of several Sumerian deities, but you did not provide a source for the information given on the page. I recently attempted to add this image to the article Sumerian religion, but another user insists that, per WP:VERIFIABILITY, the image cannot be used in the article unless I provide a citation to a reliable source that directly states what it is. I was wondering if you happened to have any recollection at all of where you found the information on the commons page with the image so that I may cite that source in the image caption in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No recollection, but after all the ms. number is in the filename, so, Schoyen Collection MS 2272. --dab (𒁳) 06:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! I really appreciate it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you are welcome -- although I am not sure the image would pass muster for "PD-Art" these days (the rationale is that it's a "manuscript", but this only works if it is "two-dimensional"). --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Omar Khayyam
Hi Dbachmann,

I have a few suggestions and concerns about the recent edits to this article.

Astrology

What is known about his contribution as an astronomer is that he reformed the calendar in 1079. His work invloved empirical astronomy and mathematics concerning the motion of heavenly bodies. It was not connected with astrology or anything that gave it a fictitious value. He is referred to as an astronomer in almost all credible reference sources (Cambridge History of Iran, Encyclopaedia Iranica etc).

Skepticism/Sufism

An important fact absent from the discussion, is that Khayyam was disliked by a number of famous Sufi mystics who were either his contemporaries or lived less than a century after his death. These include:
 * Shams Tabrizi (spiritual guide of Rumi)
 * Ghazzali
 * Najm al-Din Daya
 * Attar

They declared Khayyam as heretical, and did not regard him as a fellow-mystic. This further discredits the Sufi interpretation (which is indeed the view of a minority of scholars ).

Avicenna's philosophy

I have removed the line that says: "For decades, he also taught the philosophy of Avicenna in Nishapur".

Khayyam was known to dislike teaching. There are a few figures alleged to have studied with him (Al-Khazini, Nizami Aruzi of Samarcand, and Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani). But it is purely conjectural if they had been pupils of his.

Name

His full name would simply have been Abu’l Fath Omar ibn Ibrahim Khayyām (ابوالفتح عمر بن ابراهیم خیام). This is as it appears in Arabic sources. In Persian, it is usually just Omar Khayyam (Omar the Tent-maker), which is also the most widely used name in English according to the GBooks ngraph.


 * Ghiyāth al-Dīn 'The Patron of Faith' was not a part of his name; it's just an honorary title (like Hakim 'wise man' which he is often called).


 * In his native Persian his last name is simply Khayyam, not al-Khayyami. Also, Persian language does not use the Arabic definite article Al-.


 * Abu’l Fath and ibn Ibrahim are simply patronymic adjectives.

So, I suggest we use the conventional name Omar Khayyam (عمر خیام) in the lede and perhaps restore the section that explained the meaning of the full chain of names.

<b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 17:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments -- they are absolutely on-topic and should be posted to Talk:Omar Khayyam. I will address them there. I did not receive any e-mail though (other than the notification that you posted to my talkpage). --dab (𒁳) 05:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have divided our discussion into separate sections on the Talk:Omar Khayyam. I will try to add more information and citations. Telementor  (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan page
Just happened to be visiting the page, and saw the previous trolling, so tried to tidy it up as best I could. Thanks for sorting out some of the code, and editing whatever details I might have missed, or wouldn't be expert on! Culloty82 (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sakaldwipiya
Template:Sakaldwipiya has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sitush (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Alhazen pic
Why did you remove Alhazen's pic from the page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham. This pic is now on public domain of iran,its no more a copyrighted materiel https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alhazen,_the_Persian.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.63.185 (talk • contribs)
 * Because the image has no source. It is impossible for us to claim that it is "public domain of Iran" as long as there is no indication where and when and by whom it was published. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Knights Templar in modern culture
Hi, I have proposed renaming Category:Knights Templar in modern culture, which you created. Please see CFD Oct 13. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:South Asian history
Template:South Asian history has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Rfd notice
Hi, I've sent to RfD a bunch of redirects with which you have been involved. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 4. – Uanfala 20:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Latinx
(Having noticed your merge note)

Have I characterized this article totally wrongly? This smells of advocacy. A class project wants to jam a neologism into Wikipedia. Since one run-in with the MOStafarians regarding 'mebibyte' I know that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. Who to approach for asking for general comments and second-thoughts on this misdirected effort? Shenme (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * well, it's supposed to work via consensus between uninvolved bona fide editors. But in propaganda-heavy topics, it's difficult to get enough such editors to even care.
 * As I see, it there are two topics here, (1) Latinos (i.e. the people themselves and their identity politics etc.), and (b) the term "Latinx" itself as an exercise in gender-neutral language. Both topics are covered elsewhere (1) see Latino, (2) see gender neutral language to see the topics covered in context. What remains is the term "Latinx", as a dictionary entry, to be covered at wikt:Latinx.
 * Sometimes, it is arguable to write entire encyclopedic articles about words. These will be extremely difficult and notable words, such as God (word) or similar. Mere neologisms usually will not qualify, and if they do, it is very important to avoid any WP:CFORK and stick to discussing the term itself and not its referent. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rifaʿi (disambiguation)
Hello. I see you've moved the page Rifaʿi (disambiguation). This is now WP:MALPLACED, as there's no Rifaʿi article. The titles of the listed pages are inconsistent in their representation of ayin, but none of them contain the ʿ character, and I can't find it in other dab titles either. I'm not sure how best to sort this out and don't want to risk making things worse, so please can I ask you to take another look at it? Thanks, Certes (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * this is a purely typographic problem. Rifaʿi is to be considered equivalent to Rifa`i (options for the transliteration of ayin). --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks better. Thank you for sorting things out. Certes (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ayin
Hi-- Please note WP:ISLAM: "The characters representing the ayin (ع) and the hamza (ء) are not omitted (except when at the start of a word) in the basic form, represented both by the straight apostrophe (')." [emphasis mine]. Eperoton (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a good idea. I do not find the thing you cite on the page you link, and I also don't see why conventions on the transliteration of Arabic should be under "WP:ISLAM". --dab (𒁳) 15:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong link. I meant MOS:ISLAM. There's more on this in WP:MOSAR, but it's only a proposal. There's room for discussion here, which can be taken up on the MOS talk page. Personally, I support the use of "basic transcription" in article titles, but not in the article body as a requirement, so I would like to see that phrasing changed. However, given the current state of the MOS, we shouldn't make mass changes contrary to it. Eperoton (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * right. I realize ayin is often rendered as ' due to laziness (' is on the keyboard) but in my opinion this should be avoided at any cost, because it leads to the confusion of two completely unrelated letters. It should either be rendered with the backquote (to remain within ISO1) or ideally with the specialized ʿ character, even if the transliteration is "basic", i.e. without diacritics (ʿ does not count as a "diacritic" but as the transliteration of a full letter). I have been pursuing this approach for at least a decade now; I realize there will never be a unified way for Arabic transliteration in article titles, and that's fine, but at least we should try to use "basic transliterations" that do not lend themselves to the confusion of hamza and ayin. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So, why not try to gain consensus for this approach at MOS talk? Eperoton (talk)
 * It would never have occurred to me to bring this up at MOS:ISLAM, because the question has nothing to do with Islam. The relevant guideline page is Manual of Style/Arabic. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason this is in WP:MOSISLAM is because MOSAR is still just a proposal. I don't know why it hasn't been promoted to MOS, as it seems to be reasonably well developed, aside from the potentially contentious usage issues that we'll now have a chance to discuss. Once we iron those out, as a veteran editor, you may have helpful experience on how to get it over the hump. I'm not very active at the moment, but I'll do my best to help. Eperoton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am taking this opportunity to improve Ayin, it turns out this was incomplete and badly referenced, and of course we will need to be aware of the relevant facts before we can come up with a well-reasoned guideline. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ok, I did my research; not quite done, but at this point I think I can say pretty much everyone uses ʿ as recommended by Unicode. The only notable exception appears to be the ALA-LC standard, which seems to be due to its being published in 1991, i.e. just before the publication of the Unicode standard, and it hasn't been made "Unicode compliant" since. Based on this, I would strongly recommend for the purposes of our guideline: either do not render ayin at all (in loose transliteration of well-known names, such as Iraq) or else use ʿ (as in lesser known terms such as Muʿtazila). --dab (𒁳) 19:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice work! You've convinced me to use this symbol from now on instead of the inverted comma I've been using in running text. It looks like we don't have strong disagreements in the discussion at MOSAR (though, as I just wrote there, there's another editor whose input I'd like to get), but in practical terms we were discussing several separate though related issues, and it will take a bit of thought to flesh them out into concrete proposals. Do I understand correctly that you're proposing altering the basic transcription scheme, rather than expressing a less categorical preference for basic transcription over strict transliteration, which I've been arguing for? Eperoton (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how I feel about "basic transcription". I guess I judge its usefulness on a case-by-case basis, and I will always check how relevant English-language sources spell the term in question. It's somewhere between "anglicized" and "close" transcription, I suppose. But in what contexts is it useful to have three spellings, viz. Iraq vs. ʿIraq vs. ʿIrāq? I have to think more about this. My entire point so far is, if you're going to represent ayin at all, let's recommend you render it with the recommended Unicode glyph ʿ. --dab (𒁳) 08:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the current guideline in preference for common transcription when it's available, as it is for Iraq. Otherwise, it looks like we may be gravitating toward consensus on some significant changes. Hopefully, we can now channel the discussion into actionable proposals. Eperoton (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Warning for edit warring at Languages of Europe
uw-ew Jeppiz (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:DNTTR. I asked you to respect WP:BRD and posted my rationale. If this is your reaction then I assume I am not in a bona fide discussion on article content. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made exactly one edit to the article concerning the map. You undid it, just as you had done with another user, and I have not redone it, instead I have detailed my rationale at the talk page of the article. Seems pretty WP:BRD to me, actually. Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * so far, sure. Just, why on Earth did you feel compelled to "uw-ew" me, or how did you expect this would be conductive to resolving whatever content dispute we may be involved in? I try to find constructive solutions with people willing to point out content issues, but I am not in the habit of trying to debate with users who see every superficial difference of opinion as an "edit war" they have to win. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of JUB


The article JUB has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unintelligible rubbish"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I never clicked on the history tab, just assumed it was a new page of crap, and prodded. My bad. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Deus lo vult
Hi, Dab, long time! Hope you're doing well. I see you moved Deus vult to Deus lo vult — well — OK. Anybody looking for the phrase "Deus vult" (which I think is the phrase more likely to be looked for today ) on Wikipedia will find it, through the redirect, so, fine. But what I have trouble agreeing with is your removal of the section "21st century usage", as "recentism". I do think people looking up the phrase are quite likely to be looking for an explanation of the alt-right meme. It's pretty established. See all the sources the section has. So, I've restored it. Restored the meme only, I mean; I totally agree that it's absurdly trivial to describe a computer game under "21st century usage". Please take a look, and if you don't agree, just revert. And if you don't like the header "History", which I kind of thought I needed to put back because of the header "21st century usage", please change it. I'm not very happy with it myself. You've added a lot of interesting and learned information, so maybe there could be more sub-sections? Bishonen &#124; talk 19:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Happy to see you. Yes, this is exactly my concern. There should be a difference between Wikipedia and knowyourmeme.com
 * The Deus lo vult page should be about the scholarly, historiographical topic. I am tired of "memes" and political bickering riding on the WP:NOTE-coattails of actually notable topics.
 * If the "meme" is really considered noteworthy, on its own terms, for the purposes of Wikipedia, then let Deus lo vult be about the medieval topic, and let Deus vult (2016 Internet meme) be the page about the meme, to be judged for inclusion in the project on its own merit, and not on that of the First Crusade.
 * I had a similar experience at Kek (mythology), where I was trying to write an Egyptological article, but people thought that clearly, the 2016 presidental election, is so notable it, ahem, trumps all of history. Who cares about your dusty egyptology, we have google results showing "Kek" is a terribly important internet meme. I tried to explain that notability is relative to the page topic, but we ended up with "see also Pepe the Frog".
 * I hope you see where I am coming from. It's not about what people "are likely to look up". Of course 2 million people will look for the 4chan meme for every one person looking for an edition of the Historia by Robert the Monk. That is, for the next couple of months, when the meme will be forgotten, and the notability chasers will have moved on to disfigure other articles, leaving behind a page about a 900-year old battle cry disfigured with some short-lived headlines form October 2016 nobody will care about in October 2018. This is not how we used to operate. Back in the day it was the "Pokemon Test". Sure, write articles about your Pokemon characters and defend their notability there, but don't spam unrelated pages that just happen to share their names.
 * --dab (𒁳) 20:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am not putting this well enough. I would actually be interested in the recent history of Deus vult. I came across references from the 17th to 19th centuries suggesting it became associated with the theology of just war in modern contexts. The "meme" would just be an ironic extension of that. After all, the rise of ISIS closely paralleled the conquests of the Seljuqs, and the atrocities reported from ISIS closely parallel those reported by Urban according to Robert. The parallels are eerie, and I am sure they can be covered based on actual literature. The "meme" is probably too recent to be incorporated into this without becoming guilty of "original research", but I am sure we can cover 19th to 20th century theories of just war and "Muscular Christianity" etc. referencing the phrase. The "meme" would then just appear to be a kind of cynical or postmodern extension of such serious theories. Citing that the phrase was found as graffiti on a mosque in Glasgow will not be helpful to this unless it is put into the greater context by some respectable secondary source. --dab (𒁳) 21:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Earth
I'm sorry, I don't get how this following addition of images would be spam...

Iggy (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, if you are of the opinion that for the Earth article specifically this is a worthwhile addition, you are very welcome to revert my edit. I was mass-reverting the edits of an editor who has added this and similar "galleries" to a large number of articles without seeking consensus. (Hence "spam", I am not saying this is commercial "spam", I am just using the term as "unasked-for mass-addition of stuff".)
 * I have to say that an "image" showing the "Actual Universe" with a link to Universe is of very questionable relevance to the Earth article. You could, with the same justification, add the image to the New York page in a similar sequence showing the "Location of New York". I do think this "gallery" page has no place in the "Earth" article, but you are welcome to come to a different conclusion. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please understand that my additions of various templates (including, , , Earth location-images above and several others) were made in good faith as possible improvements to articles - they were not intended to be spam in any way, but were intended as consistent with WP:BOLD instead - however - it's entirely ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is WP:CONSENSUS from other editors - restoring worthy edits is welcome as well of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand they were made in good faith. They were also very ill advised, and created needless cleanup work. If you do propose to add the same content to more than two pages, please use a template that can be transcluded in the future, as it is a nightmare to maintain duplicated content spread across several pages. Such duplicated content should never contain images, as each article has to maintain its own individual balance of which images are worthy of inclusion. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - yes - entirely agree - no problem whatsoever - originally, the "different series of images were an experiment/test" - to see how they might look - thought about making them into templates, but didn't know if that were even possible - not at all sure yet how to do this (any help appreciated) - but may ask at WP:VPT if there's ever an acceptable need in the future - in any case - lesson learned - Thanks again. Drbogdan (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See Homo for an example, this is actual encyclopedic information (about human species) which is relevant to more than one article, so I decided it would make sense to transclude it, so it can be updated and maintained centrally. --dab (𒁳) 17:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - it's appreciated. Drbogdan (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I misspoke/misremembered, it was not my idea, apparently it's due to User:Octopus-Hands, created back in 2007. --dab (𒁳) 17:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox algiz
Template:Infobox algiz has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Herr Mannelig
Hi, I have seen that you last year seem to have given the Herr Mannelig page a significant rewrite. If you used this as a source during your rewrite, it would be appreciated if you could add a citation:

http://balladspot.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/herr-mannelig-or-mountain-trolls.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.156.163 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No reply? 84.51.143.70 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Something to read in full: WP:PLAG 84.51.143.70 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not aware that I have plagiarised anything. I usually take care to cite my sources, but I will check if I have messed up here.
 * In the meantime, you are perfectly welcome to remove any content that has been blatantly plagiarised.
 * If you want to help me in fixing this, please cite the passage I am supposed to have lifted from the blogpost you have linked. I know it is annoying to see your work re-used without attribution (obviously, it happens to the content I add to Wikipedia all the time, because everybody copies from Wikipedia, and nobody bothers to cite contributors). --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have looked at this now, and I fail to see any plagiarism. Here is the diff, I am citing all sources used, and I do not see (or remember) any turn of phrase copied from the blog you link. The main sources I have used are cited, as Haminson (1877) and  Aminson (1882) [it now strikes me that this is probably a mistake, as it is very likely the same author twice?]. The blog post cites a different source,  Geijer & Afzelius (year unknown).  I am pretty sure I had not even seen the blog post, or I would have attempted to identify the sources mentioned there. All that seems to be going on here is that the blog post is a writeup on the same 19th-century publication I have also used. I have accessed the publication directly, from the facsimile hosted at samlingarna.sormlandsspel.se, a link that does not appear to be given in the blog post.
 * Please explain what this is about and what I am supposed to have plagiarised. --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at it.

It is not about a turn of phrase. It is about the ideas.

The comparison between the two ballad texts. For example, here is some text from the blog post:

"There are a couple of differences in this version of the ballad .... It is written in the first verse that the forest maiden sings with a beautiful voice (rather than having a lying tongue)."

AND

"A second variant of the Herr Mannelig ballad appears in a later volume of the ballad collection of Södermanlands Fornminnesförening, entitled Skogsjungfruns Frieri (The Forest Maiden's Proposal). This version is longer, with twelve verses. The additional verses are made up of descriptions of further gifts: a red castle, a stable, a red cape, a blue mantle, and diamonds and gold."

Yes it is clear that you use a different turn of phrase, but you can see equivalent passages in what you have written. However, there is no comparison between the two ballad texts given in either of the Södermanlands Fornminnesförening publications that you cite as your sources. In fact I am unaware of any other such comparison.

Of course it is clear that in writing the piece for Wikipedia you have indeed gone to the Södermanlands Fornminnesförening texts and used these as the basis for your work. My question was whether you had also used this blog post.

Please note the blog post does in fact cite the two issues of Bidrag till Södermanlands Äldre Kulturhistoria (furthest down in the post) --- the same two that you have given direct links to in the Wikipedia article. The references to Geijer & Afzelius and Arwidsson that you mention now are examples of related ballad texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.148.137 (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Also written in that blog post pointing out the differences between the two ballad texts: "And here Herr Mannelig tells the forest maiden that he will not marry her as she is a heathen (rather than because she is a troll)." Again in your Wikipedia article you also mention this same difference.87.112.151.249 (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not always about copying words and phrases. Here is relevant text from the Wikipedia plagiarism page I linked for you above:

"Summarizing an unacknowledged source in your own words

Summarizing a source in your own words, without citing the source in any way, may also be a form of plagiarism, as well as a violation of the Verifiability policy.

Summarizing a source in your own words does not in itself mean you have not plagiarized, because you are still relying heavily on the work of another writer. Credit should be given in the form of an inline citation."

87.112.151.249 (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So, essentially you are saying you read lyrics published in the 1870s and summarized their content in 2016, and then in 2017 I happened to read the same lyrics and also summarize their content. We read the same text, and the content summary is just pointing out blatantly obvious facts about the text. I do not believe I had seen your blog post before you pointed it out to me. I cannot be sure I did not use it as a springboard to find the original publication I was looking for, but I see nothing original in there, just as I see nothing original in my own contributions to the Wikipedia page.
 * At this point I believe it has become clear that you believe that if you compare two versions of a song published in the 1800s, then if anyone else also compares the same two versions this qualifies as "plagiarism". Please give me a break.


 * OF COURSE the guy doesn't marry the fairy because she is a "heathen", what are you talking about? This is a major trope in folklore and I have even gone to the trouble of pointing out that the fairy trying to marry a human man is the "Fairies' Hope for Christian Salvation" type (no. 5050) in the classification of Christansen (1958)". The fairy even explicitly complains about facing the pains of hell because she was unable to marry the man. What, are you suggesting that you have "plagiarized" Christiansen (1958) by not citing him when mentioning "he will not marry her as she is a heathen"?


 * Your blog does not qualify as a "WP:RS" and could not be added as a "citation" for anything. It could appear under "WP:EL", and it isn't clear to me why you haven't added it there yourself as you seem to be so eager to hawk your blog, but it isn't a "source" for anything. --dab (𒁳) 13:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Universalizing religion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Universalizing religion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Universalizing religion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Kathisma
Thank you! Arminden (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have touched the Kathisma page, maybe you mean Church of the Seat of Mary? --dab (𒁳) 07:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How can I ask some editors to rewrite or review some specific articles?
Hi. How can I ask some editors to rewrite or review some specific articles? I'm looking for the related board. This is the reason:
 * Turkology It's full of unsourced and POV stuff. Most of them were added by this guy whom has a history of problematic edits. Plus he's related to Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 and the blocked troll uses the content of that article for promoting his agenda.
 * Turanism Owned by a single purpose account and the tone of article is more like a personal blog post rather than a Wikipedia article. Seems he use that article for promoting some political stuff. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

All edits related to Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 should be reset as an administrative matter, this can be requested at WP:ANI. Accounts restoring such material are considered sock puppets and are blocked on sight.

New content disputes are a different matter and need to be looked at case-by-case. Since this is partly a topic of the politics of Turkey, WikiProject Turkey may be relevant. As a topic related to Altaic and Central Asia, WikiProject Languages and WikiProject Central Asia may also be relevant. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sophia the Martyr
I looked more carefully at what you did - there are double redirects and you've merged and unilaterally changed the name of the article to something less recognizable. Saints Faith, Hope and Charity is not an acceptable title for an article about Saint Sophia. There is now a double redirect here Sophia of Milan. Something this messy should not have been done without a discussion. It is such a mess I don't even know how I would undo it. Seraphim System ( talk ) 21:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the references I cite, you will find that the problem is that there is no "Saint Sophia" separate from Sophia of Rome. Please read the gist of the references I have cited for this. We cannot have two articles about a single saint. The page about "Saint Sophia" is at Sophia of Rome, which is a perfectly "acceptable title" for a Saint known as Sophia of Rome. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Indigenous pages
Please stop inserting woo and panindianism into indigenous articles and discontinue past tensing us. Thanks. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I am also very concerned about the massive inaccuracies you are introducing, dab. Calling Native people, "shamans", writing about existing cultures as if they are relics of the past, calling currently in use religious items "artefacts", confusing cultures solely from the US with all Indigenous peoples worldwide, and using non-RS sources. Your edits indicate to me that you do not have the experience required to evaluate what is and isn't a reliable source, because you are using ones known by those in the field to contain whopping inaccuracies. You are creating massive harm to these articles. It takes way more than a Google search to write in this field. You need to stop. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You must be confusing me for someone else. I have been adding actual references to articles that used to be full of mistakes and lacking references.

I honestly find it hard to assume good faith here. It seems for all the world like you have some personal ideological involvement here. If you are personally invested in any of these topics, please do recuse yourself. --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My concern is for accuracy. You are now edit-warring to insert offensive misinformation. Native Americans don't use the terminology you're inserting. Only bad sources that don't know what they're talking about do. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify personally invested?

You are adding information that is grossly inaccurate and are using terminology that isn't remotely applicable. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * you are clearly not in a position to contribute to this in any coherent way due to some kind of political or racial ideology, so I will prefer to discontinue this exchange. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alamanni (disambiguation)


The article Alamanni (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "an unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please fix this without deletion. You can just turn the thing into a redirect instead. --dab (𒁳) 06:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Beringian
Hello, if you want to delete citations and make other significant changes to the article, please discuss on the article talk page first. Citations from notable sources would include reputable news organizations. IQ125 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not "delete citations". You do not appear to have read, or understood, what I posted on the article talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 06:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Tricephalous Christ listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tricephalous Christ. Since you had some involvement with the Tricephalous Christ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No sources
Hi User:Dbachmann, was wondering if you can help, basically I've seen the Majorana (surname) article and there's no reliable sources or information about the background of the family name, such as the spelling variation Maiorana (which is the more popular spelling ). Do you know what the standard is on Wikipedia when one spelling is more popular than the other but there are more notable people with the less popular spelling? As it stands the article is named after the Majorana spelling.

I've managed to find this coat of arms which seems to connect the two names.

This Google Books source says famiglia francese (I'm guessing means French family).

And this website gives distribution for Maiorana and Majorana. But not much else.

Reason I'm asking is I've seen your edits to another surname article which was phrased and presented very well, I think you'd be able to get the article more up to Wikipedia standard. If your busy editing, please get back at some point. Cheers, --Theo (contribs) 20:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did some quick googling, hope you find it helpful. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your google books source (Fiore 2001) is saying the name is "Frankish" and associates it with the Carolingian era. This seems dubious, especially because it then goes on to identify the name with Maroganus.
 * Maroganus appears to be a bona fide noble family in medieval Naples, later taking the form Marogano, Marogani and Marogana(?). The identification of Maiorana with Marogano is highly dubious (and Fiore himself seems to admit it is pure "conjecture"). --dab (𒁳) 16:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , really appreciate it. I wasn't sure about the google books source, but thanks for looking into it. Is there a reason why the article's called Maiorana (surname) and not Maiorana though? Because there's no article called Maiorana. Also; do you think this site could be used to show statistics for the name in the United States, or is it unreliable? I don't really want to use it, but couldn't find any white pages alternatives when I looked.


 * Lastly, when it says "Notable people with the surname or include" is that a typo? Cheers. --Theo (contribs) 05:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * well, the data at mynamestats.com seems really interesting (they even give a margin of error on their population estimate), and it is presumably based on official statistics(?), but I find it quite suspicious that it does not reveal its sources, or even state which year their estimate is for.
 * I did not notice that the Maiorana page had content blanked by you back in June . It even cited the "Marogana theory". I do not understand why you blanked the page. I suppose the two pages should be merged now. --dab (𒁳) 07:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll let you decide with mynamestats, the information would be a great addition but the sources have to be reliable of course (not saying mynamestats isn't, I just can't tell, maybe you can). I was moving Maiorana to Majorana (surname), because at the time a user pointed out that the Maiorana page only had 1 notable compared to the Majorana page with 3 I think. Basically, there a LOT of Maiorana-related redirects on Wikipedia at moment, I think ones for Maiorano, Majorana, etc. I think it'd be better if they where all redirecting to the same place and if Maiorana is a redirect and not the title of a page in use then I think it would be better for Maiorana (surname) to lose the (surname) part. Let me know what you think please, --Theo (contribs) 08:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, your merge decision was ok, but instead of merging you simply redirected, thus losing the information previously contained in the article. Please feel free to expand the page further, I do not propose to spend much more time with this as I am busy elsewhere. I do not object to adding the mynamestats information as long as you specify the source and the date you accessed it. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok Dbachmann, thanks for everything, can you change the name of the article to Maiorana please, as I can't do it. --Theo (contribs) 10:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that easy, because this would overwrite the old history of the Maiorana page, but I can copy-paste move my own edits to the existing page. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann, just wondered if the page belongs to any surname subcategories? If so, feel free to add which ones, cheers. --Theo (contribs) 22:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Druj


The article Druj has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Transwiki is deprecated, This is a dictionary definition rather than a enclopediac topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:DICTDEF."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking for template help
Hi Dbachmann, I think that I need admin help with something. I've been helping user:Everymorning to create a psychometrics task force in the psychology wikiproject, which would hopefully maintain Wikipedia's articles related to personality and intelligence. The wikiproject has approved creating this task force, but it apparently isn't possible to tag articles within the task force's scope unless someone edits Template:WikiProject Psychology so that it can include the relevant tag. No one has done that yet, because the template is protected so that only an admin can edit it. Discussions about this are here and here.

Are you able to determine how this template would need to be edited in order to tag these articles, and make the necessary edit? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I've managed to finally solve the template problem. (And in the process, I discovered that most Wikipedia admins don't seem to have much understanding about how templates work.)


 * Now that that's resolved, I have another question: would you be interested in joining the psychometrics task force? Everymorning and I are looking for people who are committed to upholding a high standard of sourcing and quality on these articles, and I trust you in this area. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

東 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 東. Since you had some involvement with the 東 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hausos
Could you please have a look at this article? The long-stable and decently (if not optimally) referenced version was recently replaced by a version that is not only much poorer in content, from a linguistic and mythological point of view it's absolutely terrible. Istara?! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Charles Deburau
I have made a number of changes to this page in an effort to neutralize the tone. Do you have the time to look them over to see whether they permit the deletion of the tag? (If not, I know of another senior editor who can probably help.) Many thanks for the prod to improve the page (if you'll forgive the alliteration). Beebuk 09:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Beebuk


 * Not hearing from you, I have followed the directions on Help:Maintenance template removal, which is referenced in the tag, and removed the tag myself. If you should review my edits and decide that they are insufficient (or wrongheaded), please reimpose the tag and I will edit the page again.  Thank you.  Beebuk 09:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Help identifying an image of Homo erectus
Hi! Based on your edits on the "Home erectus" page, I am hoping you can help identify what this photo depicts. It was uploaded to commons as a "Portrait of Jean Corvisart", which it is not. Then I renamed it based on it's Wellcome code (per the note on the file), but I now doubt this is correct as shortly after I found this photo of a reconstructed Pithecanthropus, which it doesn't resemble. So can you shed some light on this? I can rename the file again, but I would like to get it right this time... Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it might be McGregor's reconstruction of Neanderthal Man, see here. It's similar to but different from this bust. Perhaps McGregor made more than one, or perhaps this is a different bust built based on McGregor's? --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help & research. I have renamed the file File:Front view; likely Neanderthal bust. Wellcome M0008961.jpg, inserting the "likely" as there is no source from Wellcome, leaving it open in case some futher evidence shows up. But it looks extremely similar to McGregor's reconstruction of Neanderthal Man as you linked above. Thanks again, kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have found it -- it's the same bust, the problem was that the photograph has been mirrored. --dab (𒁳) 06:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Baltic languages
Hi, I noticed early this year you added to Sophia (name) something along the lines of "east slavic languages (and hence also Baltic languages)". I would kindly ask that you do some more research on this topic, as Lithuanian, Latvian, and the extinct Old Prussian are not "east slavic" or any kind of slavic by any stretch of the imagination and that they have many centuries of independent history. Thanks. 2601:645:4201:1447:B036:D96C:3686:514C (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I was saying that the Baltic form is loaned from the East Slavic one, not that Baltic is somehow a part of East Slavic (a bizarre statement I couldn't even have imagined people would be able to read into this). Perhaps I should have written "thence" instead of "hence". The fact that you felt you needed to send this complaint instead of spending thirty seconds wondering if the problem might be at your end just amazes me. --dab (𒁳) 07:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion about redirects
Hey, Dbachmann, when reading about Our Lady of the Pillar I came across the term "votive column," which was unfamiliar and struck me as slightly odd. So I proceeded to the article, which in turn steered me to an article seemingly on "votive images." But that turned out to be a redirect (created by you) to the article on religious images. Not understanding why when I'd aimed at A I'd arrived at B, I then hoped to discover the relationship between them: Is a votive image a kind of religious image? Are the terms simply synonymous? Is the relationship of some third type? But it turns out that the article about B, to which the "article" about A redirects, doesn't even contain the text "votive." I was foiled.

The reason I've recounted that story is to illustrate that it's not good when people find themselves redirected and have no idea why.

Based on a guess, I've inserted in the lead of the "religious image" article an assertion that the terms are synonymous. Are they? I dunno. So on that point, I defer to you who established the redirect.

And I suggest that in future when you create redirects, you follow WIkipedia's guidance in the interests of poor slobs like me.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I readily agree that coverage could be better. I did my best to cobble together a brief summary while I was working on the "Our Lady of the Pillar" topic. But what exactly do you suggest "following Wikipedia's guidance" would have meang in this case?
 * A votive offering is an offering given in fulfillment of a (religious) vow.
 * A votive image is a votive offering in the form of an image, i.e. a religious image erected in fulfillment of a vow.
 * The entire topic is rather wide-ranging, as it is an important aspect of religious culture since classical antiquity, but in the end a votive image is still a subtype of religious image. The redirect is a placeholder indicating an article waiting to be written. I am not sure what I could have done here short if just writing the article myself. --dab (𒁳) 15:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to have done something to the "religious image" article that at least gives a hint—near the top and easily found—of why people expecting to read about votive images find themselves instead confronted with an article that says it's about religious images. Kind of like the change that I did make. I gather now that my guess was wrong, that votive images are not THE-SAME-AS religious images, but rather A-KIND-OF. So maybe a better edit would be to insert a new second sentence of the article like,
 * "Religious images that are erected in fulfillment of vows are also called votive images."
 * That would do it.


 * FYI, the thought never occurred to me that the purpose of the redirect was to indicate that an article was waiting to be written.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Eutheism listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eutheism. Since you had some involvement with the Eutheism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Malevolent God listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malevolent God. Since you had some involvement with the Malevolent God redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful
Hello D. When you make this edit two things happen. First, you recreate a bare url after I had properly formatted it. Second, you wipeout all of the references after this one. There are nine references in the article but after your edit only three show up in the references section. I would suggest that the question you are putting in the should be put on the talk page for the article. If you don't get a reply there you could try asking at one of the wikiprojects for the article or even one of the ref desks. Best regards and I hope you have a pleasant Sunday. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 07:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * my mistake, sorry. --dab (𒁳) 04:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worrys D. The edits came pretty close together so you may not have seen what I had done. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More to the point, what are we going to do with this form "Shmounē" now? Surely we can find a decent reference for the Coptic name of Hermopolis. --dab (𒁳) 05:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of human evolution
I think there may be major problems with as it was created without sources. See my comment at Talk:Timeline of human evolution. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Dionysian Era
I regard using the rare term Dionysian Era in place of Anno Domini as likely to be a deliberate attempt to suppress mention of Christian-related concepts and a likely violation of WP:NPOV. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not my intention at all. The problem is much rather that the "Dionysian era" (I agree the term is awkward) is used exclusively in Western Christianity [I mean was, before modern times, obviously it's ISO 8601 now], so calling it "the Christian era" would be a violation of NPOV. Maybe "the Western Christian era", but we would need to check if this term is in actual use.
 * You cannot call the era "Anno Domini", this would be just jarring. "Anno Domini" means "in the year of our lord" and has to be accompanied by a numeral or it makes no sense.  It is not the name of the era by any stretch, it is the term used to identify a year number given in this era.
 * You can call it "the Common Era", but then you are opting for a term that is ostensibly coined to avoid mentioning the Christian background of the era. The entire reason I am calling it "Dionysian era" is that I want to be neutral, and I recognize "Common Era" as a secularist term coined expressly to annoy Christians.
 * --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all dictionaries endorse the idea of calling the era "Anno Domini"; Oxford Dictionaries just says it's the full form of AD, and that AD is used in indicating years of that era. But Richards gives "Anno Domini" as the name of the era in table 15.2. On page 591 he uses the phrase "Anno Domini system". But it would seem jarring to some people.
 * If you call it "Common Era", you are using a term that many have adopted because they want to make the Christian connection less explicit, but it is a commonly used term, so it doesn't seem like the writers of the Wikipedia article are making a unique convoluted effort to reduce the connection to Christianity. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, I wouldn't agree that the term "Christian era" is exclusive to Christianity. For example, New York State is prohibited from establishing a religion by the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution, yet the "General Construction Law" contains this section:
 * "§ 57. Year,  common  and  leap.  For  the  purpose  of computing and reckoning the days of the year in the same regular course in the future, every year, the number of which in the Christian era is  a  multiple  of four,  is  a  bissextile  or  leap  year consisting of three hundred and sixty-six days, unless such number of the year  is  a  multiple  of  one hundred  and  the first two figures thereof treated as a separate number is not a multiple of four, and every year which is not a leap year is  a common year consisting of three hundred and sixty-five days."
 * I also degree with the notion that ISO 8601 is any sort of worldwide redefinition of year numbering, the Gregorian calendar, or anything else. It is an optional standard that some people or organizations have decided to follow for some purposes. ISO is a not-for-profit corporation that can't send anybody to jail for violating their standards, nor can it send anyone to hell. It would be particularly inapt to think of it as defining an era which is commonly used with both the Julian and Gregorian calendars, considering that ISO 8601 limits itself to the Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "the Anno Domini system" may be clumsy, but at least it isn't objectively wrong, as opposed to saying "Anno Domini is a calendar era ..." or similar.
 * "Common Era" is strongly tied to secularism and actively anti-Christian sentiment. I do not think it can be used without the connotation that you were willingly participating in the "culture war". Since about half of US editors on Wikipedia are here just for that (fighting the culture war), it would be a lost cause to dwell on that, and I agree that "Common Era" is, on the face of it, innocuous. I am not American, so I don't have an active dislike for it, I just find it needlessly confrontational.
 * You misunderstand my point on "Christian era". I am not saying the term "Christian era" implies a pro-Christian bias. On the contrary, I believe 19th-century Jewish use of "C.E." was meant to abbreviate "Christian era", as it were "we are here using the era used by the Christians and not our own AM convention". The point is rather, that by saying "Christian era" you seem to imply that the era is a (pan-)Christian tradition while it is in fact limited to Latin Christianity. Some people have a problem with using "Christian" when you mean "Latin Christian", and at the very least I have to admit it is misleading.
 * This is splitting hairs, though, and if English-language usage for "Christian era" can be established I will be happy to use it. It's certainly better than either "Dionysian era" and "the Anno Domini system".
 * I don't think we disagree on ISO at all, it's a notable secular standard, that's all.
 * --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Richards on page 589 uses "The Christian Era" and goes on in that section as the era intended by Dionysius Exiguus. Whenever I have encountered "Christian Era' in a context where a specific starting year was intended, that starting year was always the starting year that leads to this year being 2018 (leaving aside the argument of whether the starting year was -1, 0, or 1). I have encountered it in a more generic context, where it means the era in which Christianity has flourished. But I think using it in a Wikipedia article would be resisted, because the link to Christianity is more obvious and the use by publications (both secular and Christian) is less than Anno Domini, and much less than AD.
 * I accept "Christian era" as a valid term for the thing -- but I am still not sure I understand what you are saying. "Christian era" is how non-Christians or secularists refer to it. I would submit the "link to Christianity" is factual and cannot be disputed, the question is simply if you want to call it after "our Lord" (Christians) or "that convention introduced by Christians" (non-Christians). Hence, "Christian era" should be eminently acceptable to secularists (they came up with it). --dab (𒁳) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Christians use it too, along with many equivalent terms. And just because the phrase may originally have been popularized by some non-Christians doesn't mean you could introduce it today on Wikipedia without a lot of edit-warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Bantu expansion
Hi, dbachmann. Could you please review this edit? The new editor claims "this once-persuasive migration hypothesis is totally discredited, not only by the new linguistic data but also by the accumulation of archaeological and genetic evidence". --Ghirla-трёп- 04:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Obvious pov-pushing, and very incompetent at that. Anyone who cites a 1995 paper, in the form "http://www.msu.ac.zw/elearning/material/temp/1329553910Vansina%201995%20linguistic%20evidence%20and%20bantu%20migrations.pdf", to "establish" that a perfectly mainstream concept has been "totally discredited" has to be reverted on sight and asked to start learning the basics.

The evidence presented translates to "Vansina (1995) has voiced his 'personal view' to the effect that the Bantu migration paradigm is flawed and that the spread of the Bantu languages was more gradual", but obviously this is much less exciting. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Religious founder listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Religious founder. Since you had some involvement with the Religious founder redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ï
Hi, dbachmann, I'd like to add some early census entries to the Maiorana artice to explain the history (such as diaspora), but can't find much and I'm not sure what sources are reliable when it comes to human history (I mainly edit music articles). I was hoping you know where to look, also found this article from French Wikipedia that spells the i in Maiorana with two dots, I don't know the significance or if it's a variant. And lastly, do you think the notables should be seperated by variant? --Theo Mandela (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a variant, this is a French spelling in order to ensure the proper (Italian) pronunciation in French -- much like you used to spell cooperation as "coöperation" in English to avoid pronunciation as in coop. I really can't help you with the references, family history is notoriously difficult because the sources are usually self-published or rotting away in archives. I would try contacting enthusiasts on genealogy websites and ask for their help, I gather there is quite the online community (werelate.org and similar sites). --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked into the two dots and it's done with the "O" on the surname Sarkozy, which also isn't originally French. But wouldn't there be records were you got the refs for the Susskind article? If not, all good. And do you think the Maiorana notables should be separated by variation? Thanks, --Theo Mandela (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's different, Theo. Sarkozy (Sarközy) is a Hungarian name, and Hungarian has umlaut phonemes, like German. In French and English usage, the same diacritic is used for dieresis. Look, this is really basic stuff, you are on Wikipedia, and it's all right there for you to read up, please try to do at least the basic footwork on your own power. Wikipedia is great not just for posting about your own expertise, it's also great for learning things. --dab (𒁳) 05:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Family history of Nicolas Sarkozy
 * Hungarian alphabet

I know dbachmann, my bad, but like I said I've been mainly reading and editing articles relating to music and the top 40 in particular. If Maiorana doesn't need any more content, then can you review the Cohan article please, I've edited a few times, but it looks improper to me.--Theo Mandela (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edits to Pygmy peoples
Hello, Dbachmann.

I noticed that you have recently heavily edited the Pygmy peoples article. Overall, it seems that you have improved the article's organization, but seem to have inadvertently made some material impossible to find from the article.

In particular, can you please re-integrate (summaries of and links to corresponding main articles for) the Abuse by non-Pygmies and Music sections which you removed?

Thank you and have a great day!

MarkGyver (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ah yes, the rationale for removing this was that it was not on the comparative topic of Pygmy peoples but about African Pygmies in particular.
 * The term "Pygmies" is often just used to refer to "African Pygmies", but as long as we keep the two pages, one about the umbrella term based on physiology, and one about African Pygmies or "Central African foragers", material specifically about Central African forages should not be included in the page about the umbrella term. --dab (𒁳) 12:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Epipalaeolithic
It's time you stopped causing problems with these undiscussed moves, and entered into discussions. Your disam page was not even correct, as Epipalaeolithic is not merely a synonym for Mesolithic in Europe, but is often treated as part of the Paleolithic (as the name suggests). There is a discussion at Talk:Epipaleolithic_(Levant). Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong with your approach to this project. You have been here how many years now? And you still think it is ok to revert-war over random topics you did not do even the slightest excuse for research on? I have never seen you show understanding of any point on content, all you do is your obsessing over whatever it is you think is a "correct disambiguation page", even at the cost of violating actual policy by doing copy paste move or edit-warring with no discussion or rationale. This is just sad, man. --dab (𒁳) 12:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You've obviously (and very typically) never looked at the edit history of (the old) Epipalaeolithic, Mesolithic etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Artical review
Hi dbachmann, can you make sure the Cohan article is up to standards please? Cheers, --Theo Mandela (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Article Vandalism
Hi, I noted that despite your great editorial skills,you did not do proper research and neither did you read the conclusions of your references on Bantu expansion before removing most of the earlier referenced content. Did you base your judgement on your own personal views, political leanings and other individual feelings before you did your edit on the Bantu Expansion article? Further more,I discovered you trolled my recent referenced edits in other unrelated articles and adulterated them as well.Were these edits driven by feelings of anger, malice and vengeance? Despite your many years as an editor, I need to tell you this.Next time,don't put your feelings and personal views ahead of Wikipedia reputation as a source of well referenced information irrespective of whether that referenced information supports your narrow world view or not. I believe that if today a new element is discovered, Wikipedia will be updated within seconds.Why? Because Wikipedia is a source of information and it gets updated every time that information changes.Next time, learn to read and understand the references given and especially their conclusions. Don't just rely on a few sentences in a paper combined with your feelings,personal views and vendetta to edit updates on various articles without proper thought.

Mwenemucii (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no personal views on this, indeed I have no particular interest in the topic beyond my general focus on prehistory atm. I am not sure where the "vandalism" is coming in here, but I have to say that your editing behaviour is very troubling, and you admit that you have a deep personal interest, if not an actual ethno-nationalist agenda. Please find a topic you feel less strongly about. --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Shakatayana bio page
Why was the first line changed to reflect the bio of the later Shakatayana vs. the earlier grammarian (8th BCE) who was attested by both yaska and panini?

I call for a another page for the earlier grammarian as there is no dearth of space on the wikipedia at least for now 

I will wait for a couple of days and then revert the date to the earlier Shakatayana — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

The problem is not one of "space", the problem is that tradition is so murky that it is impossible to distinguish the two. --dab (𒁳) 17:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a few tips
Just a few tips: SUM1 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop making words bold which do not directly link to the current article.
 * Stop inserting numerous new lines in the middle of text.
 * Stop inserting double and triple spaces in text.

Can you give me a diff, or at least complain about something specific. I have spent 15 years here, and clicked the edit button about a quarter million times at this point, so it will not do for you to phrase your complaints in the guise of "a few tips". If you want to complain, I am happy to listen, but you will need to point me to the problem. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , . You did all three of these things in just these two pages. It took a while to clean up. SUM1 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

edits of heat
Thanks for helping clean up that article. I think most of your edits are a major improvement, but please see my comments on the talk page. Also, I accidentally hit "enter" before I finished typing my edit summary - what I wrote came off sounding more harsh than I intended and I was going to tone it down, and I also meant to add that I hope you agree my edit to the lead sentence is an improvement.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 10:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have answered on the article talkpage. I am sure we can come to a good solution here. --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Anatolians
Hi. Could you move the article Ancient Anatolians to the title Anatolians? "Anatolians" is the common, concise and precise name for this people. The link "Anatolians" redirects to "Ancient Anatolians" anyways. The article received its current title through a move discussion after a pov-pusher had moved it to Anatolians (extinct Indo-European people). Krakkos (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The current title is bad, and "Anatolians" is also bad, and the article is extremely bad. It should probably be "Anatolian peoples (Indo-European)" or similar, if kept, but as it stands it should just be merged into Anatolian languages. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Churches by dedication has been nominated for discussion
Category:Churches by dedication, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="SCOTW" style="background-color:#E6E6FA;border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;width:90%;float:center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, Kpgj  hpjm  03:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Be careful of incoming links to dab pages
Hi! There are supposed to be no links to dab pages. When you move a page and create a disambiguation page out of the leftover redirect, please fix all the links to the moved page. There are five redirects and some other links that need to be fixed for Urbicius. Would you please update those? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * you are right, this was my bad. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

WW2 Casualties
Your prior entry was wrong it does not agree with the source.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not guess if you are not familiar with the sources!--Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Please do not guess if you are not familiar with the sources!--Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This is rather condescending in tone considering that I cited the relevant passage in the source used verbatim. Perhaps you would care to explain in what way my edit does not accurately reflect the content of the source I have cited? Have you even read the article in question, or am I going to have to read the article for you and then quote passages at you for your approval? --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

OK Dbachmann quote the passages for me, I have all of Haar's articles in my files. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann I believe that you made your edits in good faith. The key point to remember is that the West Germans in the 1950's counted all the dead and missing civilians in Eastern Europe together, including the deported to the USSR, in the figure of 2 million. However there was a separate report in 1965 that covered just those deported to the USSR--Woogie10w (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Here Is What Haar Says: Tatsächlich gibt es in der rechnerischen Bilanz zwar einen Bevölkerungsverlust von zwei Millionen Personen für die Gebiete jenseits der Oder-Neiße-Linie und aller ›Auslandsdeutschen‹, aber damit sind alle deutschen Verluste von 1939 bis 1944/45 in diesen Regionen gemeint, einschließlich der Vermissten und Unidentifizierten. Außerdem sind in dieser Zahl auch vermeintlichen deutschen Geburtenausfälle, die Staatsangehörigkeitswechsler, ungezählte Wehrmachtstote, die ermordeten deutschen Juden und Vermisste einbezogen. Die Zahl der konkret bezeugten Opfer beläuft sich jedoch nicht mehr als auf 0,5 bis 0,6 Mio.Personen insgesamt. Wolfgang Benz reflektiert die Problematik des ungenügenden historischen Kontextes und der mangelnden Transparenz der bisheriger Zahlen sehr deutlich, indem er von rund zwei Millionen Deutschen spricht, die auf der Flucht vor der Roten Armee und mit der Vertreibung ihr Leben ließen. Davon waren im polnischen Fall im engeren Sinne aber nur 0,1 bis 0,2 Mio. Personen direkte Opfer von Rache- und Mordaktionen."

OK Dbachmann the German government disagrees with Haar they maintain that the number is 2 million, Haar is supported by the The German Historical Museum. Dbachmann on Wikipedia we have a NPOV a present both sides of the argument.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Transhuman
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash; Transhuman &mdash;has been proposed for merging with Posthuman. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tathar (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Okonma
Hi Dbachmann, could you find a source for all the information on the Okonma name article please? None of what's currently written is sourced and the infobox appears to have been vandalized. Also, do you know the reason some name articles use infoboxes and others don't? Thanks, Theo Mandela (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes should be used pragmatically, i.e. use it if there is any meaningful and referenced content that can be summarized in them, otherwise don't. In this instance, a "given name" infobox was used in a surname article, so it was misplaced to begin with. --dab (𒁳) 06:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. Theo Mandela (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Stallone/Rambo
Hi Dbachmann, the Stallone surname article is currently formatted as just being the name of the family of Sylvester Stallone ("surname of a Hollywood family"). Can you add a description for the name of Southern Italian (Sicilian ) origin as well please?

Also: The Rambo article lists it as an "American surname of Swedish origin", yet the Dictionary of American Family Names says it can be either French or German in origin. Theo Mandela (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

yes, that's peculiar, I have added your reference to the page. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * for fixing both articles, much appreciated. Theo Mandela (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Avoid personal comments
There are unnecessarily personal, derogatory comments towards me in the following talk pages Talk:Mongoloid and Talk:Australoid. Please refer to No personal attacks. You also suggest that edits are being interfered with which seems in contrast to the advice at WP:OWN. Travelmite (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You should provide some diffs if you are going to accuse me of something like this. I do not issue "personal" attacks on people I do not know personally. I do question the motivation for blatantly biased edits in violation of Wikipedia's core principles, as I should. Wikipedia isn't kept objective and encyclopedic on its own, it's a constant effort on the part of dedicated editors. And it is completely obvious that there are editors who are motivated by political ideology. Articles on race are especially vulnerable, there are plenty of editors attempting to push ideological points related to racism (political ideology based on race) in articles that are ostensibly simply about race (human population groups). There are, if you can believe it, people who try to push the narrative that the mere study of racial descent groups, genetically or physiologically, is somehow inherently racist. These people are trying to project issues of US politics on articles without any objective relation with the US, or with politics. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Giuliano Maiorana
Hi Dbachmann, would you be able to correct the nationality and background of Giuliano Maiorana in the article, please? A look at the revision history shows the confusion over this and even the surname article leaves out his nationality. At one time an IP made an unsourced claim that Maiorana's parents were from Avellino but I've found this interview (unsure if the source is reliable) were Maiorana himself says this and his nationality. Other IPs have since removed information and categories relating to this and I'm still unsure about were him being born in Cambridge and FIFA eligibility rules come in and how to phrase it. Theo Mandela (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ptolemaeus secundus
A new input on the matter that might interest you. 2001:16A2:1411:8C00:45E7:9C17:3811:4D55 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Hallstatt LaTene.png


Hello, Dbachmann. I am having difficulty interpreting a map you made, and hope you can help me. As a preamble, I am aware that the color labels given on WP maps often render differently on my monitor (perhaps also on other monitors?). My color rendition is otherwise pretty normal. On the map in question, what is called yellow is distinctly orange (Hallstatt). I understand where Hallstatt and LaTene overlap, producing green-orange-brown colors. I don't understand the orange-brown color of Iberia, though. Does it represent a complete overlap of the two cultures? I'm hoping to modify the image caption so that it makes more sense, provided you agree with me that the Hallstatt color is rendering as orange, and can explain for me the Iberia color. Thank you.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I made this map ten years ago, when I had no mapmaking skills to speak of. It is a crappy map. Today, I would do it properly, in svg. The short answer is that Iberia is indicated as part of Hallstatt, but not the original core area of Hallstatt, and never reached by La Tene.

The idea is that Hallstatt is in yellow, and La Tene is in green. The Hallstatt core area is in solid yellow, the La Tene core area in solid green. The overlap of the Hallstatt and La Tene areals are in a blend of yellow and green. There are areas that are Hallstatt only (Britain, Iberia), and areas that are La Tene only (Brittany, Netherlands, Italy etc.) The "orange-brown" of Iberia is the result of none-core Hallstatt without La Tene (i.e. I used transparent yellow which became mixed with the gray of the map background). --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Subhash Kak
Back in 2007, you did a few merges to rein in the NPOV coverage of computer scientist Subhash Kak. Since then, the pages have been restored by an ip editor. I was wondering if you could take another look. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ten years ago, I was making a point of defending Wikipedia against the parochial editing of Hindu nationalists. Today, this would seem like a bad case of 'isolated demands for rigour', as Wikipedia has been completely taken over by the parochial editing of Western ideologues. I have no hope of enforcing neutral editing standards against such an overwhelming force. I will not try to bicker about the mote in Indian editors' eyes while ignoring the beam in Western editors' eyes, so I try to do my best in staying away from issues of contemporary politics. Of course, this isn't going to work, as the ideologues are making damn sure they are pushing their narrative even in topics of pure academic interest.

Wikimedia appears to have become completely infiltrated by rent-seeking activists. I was appalled to learn that Wikimedia owns USD 140 million, and expends USD 80 million per year, of which all of USD 2.3 million go into hosting cost. About 90% of the project is pure corruption now, and the actual encyclopedia is just allowed to keep going as a sort of side project. The time for a fork will come soon, and I do hope the right people will be available for this, so that standards of political neutrality and dedication to encyclopedicity can be salvaged. --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:European chronology (archaeological)
This is a useful box, but it needs to sit neatly at the right, rather than overlap images as it does at present. Please fix this, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Eggers' Roman A & B was surely only intended to apply to "Roman Germany"? I can assure you it is pretty unknown elsewhere, & is not appropriate for this box. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right. It should be "Central European", not "European". Eggers refers to Germania Magna, so no, not "Roman Germany", but basically most of Central/Northern Europe, but it certainly shouldn't be taken as extending to all of Europe. My template was de:Vorlage:Eisenzeit, de:Vorlage:Bronzezeit, which clearly limits its scope to "Central Europe". The problem is that we don't have an equivalent to de:Bronzezeit (Mitteleuropa) here, we just have European Bronze Age. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added a "Central" to the headings - the Bronze Age one overlaps the Aegean section for example, so confusion needs to be avoided. I don't know if you saw this very similar effort at Tumulus culture - I haven't compared the dates. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC) You are very kind Gerda, thank you for this. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Rasmus Nyerup
Hello, Dbachmann,

Thanks for creating Rasmus Nyerup! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: transmogrification
You apparently flagged the transmogrification sentence as "citation needed". I have found what I belive is the correct citation. IMHO this citation is dubious as it is hearsay rather than a quotation from a letter by Fitzgerald. Can you please read my transmogrification note on the Talk page and comment there?

PS: Your 2017 edits seem to have improved the article quite a bit. /Roger D. Moore Rdmoore6 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Germania Antiqua) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Germania Antiqua.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mark <sup style="color: #F0A804;">Dask  01:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not "create" this, please do some minimal due diligene and stop templating me. Ask me for comments, "manually", if you want advice on how to deal with it. --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * apologies, It seems you did not actively template me, this was either some misguided bot, or you are using some kind of questionable editing tool that auto-templates people. --dab (𒁳) 17:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Surya Siddhanta
Hi,

I see that you used to help clean up fringe stuff on Surya Siddhanta. I found a paragraph there which I think lies somewhere between fringe research and deliberately misleading, and removed it. I have also added a discussion on the talk page, could you please review?

Best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment.  This is bunk. Stuff related to the Society for Scientific Exploration may be mentioned, but only with due caveats that this is about WP:FRINGEcruft. --dab (𒁳) 17:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was worried I was being a bit too harsh -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Medieval Persia has been nominated for discussion
Category:Medieval Persia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Southern Arabs
A redirect you created at the dawn of time has been nominated for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Scythia/Parthia image
Hi dbachmann, you made an image: several years back. It's a great image but somebody added "Georgia" and "Armenia" to the map which are not relevant and Georgia didn't even exist during ancient times. Could you re-edit this to get rid of it? DA1 (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also if possible, could you move the "Uralic tribes" a little more to the left because it's straying too far from East Scandinavia and Northwest Russia where the Uralic people dominated, and could you turn the "Turkic tribes" a little counter-clockwise to appear a bit more straight, otherwise it gives the impression that it's representing East Asia as opposed to the border region of North Asia and Central/East Asia. DA1 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I might redraw it in svg so changes can be made. But of course if people want to make undiscussed changes to a map they should have the courtesy of uploading their version under a different filename. --dab (𒁳) 06:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * fwiiw, it might be fair to label "Armenia". For Georgia, "Iberia" could be used. But if we're beginning to start labelling such small entities, the map will just end up covered in dozens of labels unrelated to its main scope. --dab (𒁳) 06:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, that's why it's a bad idea. There's just too many entities you could name and it's irrelevant and tedious. Also 'Iberia' only factors central Georgia, the west would be 'Colchis', whereas eastern Georgia and the East Caucasus (north Azerbaijan and south Dagestan) would be 'Albania'. DA1 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe just label it as "Caucasus" or similar. It's kind of relevant because it does border the Iranian sphere. But the map is old and should be redrawn as svg anyway. --dab (𒁳) 07:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the name Khuzestan
Dab, do you know anything about this subject (see recent article/talk-page history for current dispute), or know of editors who can act as honest brokers? Abecedare (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Afaics, Xuz = Susiana = Khuzestan seems credible enough. The material is all there, it's just presented in a bizarre way.
 * Clearly, this isn't about a factual dispute at all, but about excitable editors (who call "vandalism" on removal of their quotefarms of completely unrelated to the topic). I fail to see why, if the name was fully established in the 12th century, we would need a full list of literature, 12th to 18th century, of every occurrence of the name. Whatever is going on here, it clearly isn't the "origin of the name Khuzestan" that is under discussion. Perhaps ask people to take material on the history of Khuzestan to the Khuzestan page, and the details on etymology to wikt:Khuzestan (which already has a perfectly good entry on the name's etymology).
 * --dab (𒁳) 20:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dab. You and Doug_Weller had similar read of the article! Lets see if an effort to trim the article can be made to stick (will give it a try later this week). Abecedare (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Indulging
in a cleanup of Subhash_Kak. Advices or criticism are immensely welcome:-) Also, see User_talk:Doug_Weller:-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Capaldi
Hi dbachmann, could you add the variant Capaldo (a notable is Nicolás Capaldo), which is the more widespread spelling in Italy please? I've been struggling trying to paraphrase it. Theo Mandela (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Pro-American listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pro-American. Since you had some involvement with the Pro-American redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Homosexual people has been nominated for discussion
Category:Homosexual people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC) I guess this was predictable. I have learned that the ideological agenda will trump historiographical or factual concerns every time in this particular field. So, I guess Patroclus was "LGBT", am I right? He may have been Lesbian, or Trans, or maybe just Bi, I am afraid there is really no way to be sure now, so let's give the man the alphabet soup treatment just to be safe, wouldn't want to misgender him now, would we. dab (𒁳) 06:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Count dante ad 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Count dante ad 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;"> <span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular"> <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none"> <div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)
A discussion has started about wrapper templates of Link language. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC) ( is my main account.)

Nomination of Hard and soft for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hard and soft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hard and soft until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

20346 AD listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 20346 AD. Since you had some involvement with the 20346 AD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 06:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have time to review an article?
Hello, we are the archivists at Lombard Odier in Geneva and wanted to improve the article relating to the bank, which is quite sub-par. We proposed a new version on the talk page, and the editor who replied to us kindly suggested we see with people from the Wikiproject Switzerland, where your user name is listed (we since also made a first round of improvements and fixed some formatting issues): here is the new draft.

Unfortunately, the project's talk page has seen little activity over the past few weeks (someone has made minor edits and confirmed it was fine on her end), and I'd like to come back to the editor with a strong consensus on the Project Switzerland side.

To be clear, the very same text has been posted in other languages (French, Spanish, German, and Italian), with editors there helpfully pitching in/editing afterwards (German also implements gesichtete Versionen, so this text had to be reviewed by someone before appearing publicly). We're entirely fine with the article living its own life and being edited by anyone, we understand it and actually like the idea that people can research and improve content (we are big readers too!).

So if you have time, would you mind having a look and telling me if you see anyhing of concern, changes to be done, or if you think the new text is ready to go live here as well?

Thanks and regards, Hello at LO (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! The initial reviewer still requests that we give a full quote for each and every single reference, which seems a bit vexatory (there is a hundred of them, and he doesn't even speak French or German, so I wonder why he would ask for these). He however indicated that others are free to implement the changes: would that be ok with you? Hello at LO (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I will take this upon myself, please give me a couple of days. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hans Vintler
Hallo, DBachmann, du hast seinerzeit den englischen Artikel zu Hans Vintler angelegt. Ich habe heute einen deutschen erstellt und gerade im englischen drei, wie ich meine, Fehler korrigiert. Du kannst ja mal gucken. Viele Grüße, --Coyote III (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please help against racism and investigate in this case
On the article Ainu people and on Jomon people. I included important information about the origin and theories. The recent studies I includes support a Australo-Melanesian (Papua-Melanesian) connection/relation. Racist user derekhistorian tries to hide this and deletes all completely. Wikipedia must not accept racism and must mention all theories. The Nature journal and other official citations get deleted by him and he promote Asian and white supremacy claims. Please have a look on the citations and please try to correct these articles. I can link all the important studies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35426-z

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5765509/

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6397/88

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/03/15/579177.full.pdf

Please see so the quotes in included to make it easy to check. Please help me.Gyatso1 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * apparently rolled back as part of a sock block.
 * Sock puppetry is of course bannable, and I do not know the history of this. However, the edit in question on its own appears to be not only innocuous, but in fact an improvement, citing a scientific study rather than a political activist group in the matter of a scientific question. After reviewing whether this accurately reflects the content of the paper cited I would consider restoring this. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The paper suggests that the Jomon people (not the Ainu) can be grouped with "Australo-Papuan".
 * We documented a continuation of the “first layer” AMH in southern China on the basis of hunter-gatherer sites that were dated between ca. 14 kya and 5 kya  [...]  From those hunter-gatherer sites, diagnostic features of skeletal remains included the presence of dolichocephalic calvaria, large zygomatic bones, remarkably prominent glabellae and superciliary arches, concave nasal roots, and low and wide faces. Notably, ancient Japanese Jomon hunter-gatherers belonged to this same grouping.
 * As such, the diff cited above is a perfectly adequate addition in an article on the Jomon. It isn't clear that it is on topic for the Ainu.
 * This particular study is about craniometry on ancient remains, not on living Ainu people.


 * Since I have met with ideological madness that considers the field of anthropology or population genetics itself as "racist", sadly not just in inexperienced drive-by editing but in long-term "Wikipedians in good standing", I am somewhat concerned that "administrative procedure" is being used to selectively clamp down on "research I do not like". Therefore, good care should be taken that somebody who goes after this sock puppet also includes brief mention of this study at an appropriate place as a show of good faith that this is indeed about sock puppetry, not censorship.
 * --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Tutankhamun reconstruction pronunciation
Aloha. I am currently reviewing the article; Tutankhamun and one particular part of the article, the beginning of the lede, has some notes about the reconstruction that explain very little about what the sources actually say and made it terribly difficult to verify the information due to the Non English sources being very difficult to track down and little scholarly sources available online. Long story short...I tracked down the mentions of the authors, sources and Tut and the paper trail led me to you as a contributor to the article; Egyptian language back in 2007. Any help you can give would be appreciated however, what I am going to do for the moment is to copy over to the Tut article, the relevant portions and sources for the spelling and reconstructed pronunciation of his name, mentioned in the language article as they seem easier to understand how you got the information. I still have some more reading to catch up on from your work and I am taking my time on the tut review to insure it has proper scholarly sources so there is no hurry. Thanks and Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also seeing is a contributor to this section ( as I am going through the history trying to see how and when the full sources came together).--Mark Miller (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It apears that the content came first, added by Mo-Al.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Tutankhamun. Haukur (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Swiss Canton page preview
I wasn't sure where to mention this or who to ask, so I went to WikiProject Switzerland and chose you. I noticed that the Page Previews for the Cantons of Fribourg and Grisons don't work properly, instead of the page introductory text they show the beginning code of the page infoboxes. I wasn't sure how to fix it after I noticed it so I figured I'd message someone and hope it gets fixed. Thanks for your time! 2600:8807:C800:85D:244B:755D:9E44:58EE (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything looks normal for me. But since this is a technical issue, not content related, maybe you would like to ask for input at Help desk. --dab (𒁳) 06:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Cozbi
I noticed you nominated merging Cozbi into Heresy of Peor. Why didn't you start a merge discussion, that way we can agree with you. If you just tag and then do noting, it is not going to happen, and in a few years we'll remove the tag and that's it. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, I've been doing this for 14 years now. I have expressed the suggestion by placing the template. If you have an objection or suggestion, you are most welcome to voice it. Not necessarily on my personal talkpage but on the article talkpage. If nobody reacts I am just going to perform the merger whenever I get around to it (or not, if I forget). I don't know why we are discussing procedure instead of content, this is needless overhead. I don't feel strongly about this at all, I just came across a stub with no potential for expansion and tagged it for merging. I am certainly not going to invest time in convincing anyone that this should be done. --dab (𒁳) 17:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I need no convincing in this case, and you shouldn't feel obligated to convince anyone of your opinion, but tagging in this way is pretty useless, in my experience (which isn't much less than yours).
 * Please also notice that Template:Merge/doc says: "After adding the merge template, you are expected to create a section on the talk page of the appropriate article (see below for details) explaining your rationale for the merge proposal." Debresser (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Excellent, then we both have lots of experience on how to minimize conflict on Wikipedia. In this case I would suggest we simply drop the issue and live with the fact that we do things slightly differently, both of us aiming for the good of the project. Happy editing --dab (𒁳) 17:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Mark Yazaki
Hey dab! I was working on the article Ophiuchus (astrology) and I noticed an interesting claim in the lead: "A 13-sign zodiac has been suggested by Walter Berg and by Mark Yazaki in 1995...". The Walter Berg part is pretty straightforward. He published the book The 13 Signs of the Zodiac in May 1995, which was translated into Japanese later that year by Kiyoko Suzuki. I'm not familiar, however, with Mark Yazaki or his relationship with promoting the 13 sign zodiac, and the rest of the article doesn't mention him at all. It looks like you were the person who added the "and by Mark Yazaki" part, so I was wondering if you could elaborate any. Do you know if Yazaki was just repeating Walter Berg's ideas or if he was presenting an independent concept? Or did they collaborate? Did he publish his ideas before or after Berg's? I'm just curious who actually started promoting the 13 sign zodiac idea first, as the article is ambiguous on that currently (and I wasn't able to find any information about Mark Yazaki outside Wikipedia, but I don't read Japanese). Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no recollection of this, I'll have to look at the diffs -- It was in January 2011. I imagine that I was in a hurry and just wanted to pinpoint the claim that this originated "in the 1990s". Maybe I made a mistake, if the Yazaki part cannot be substantiated, the name should just be dropped. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Naga languages
Dbachmann, do you have an opinion on this creation? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a terminological mess and WP:CFORK. But these languages are so poorly researched that I guess that's what we have to expect. --dab (𒁳) 08:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Round World version of the Silmarillion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Round World version of the Silmarillion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Round World version of the Silmarillion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Lunate sigma
Do you really think that while the standard shape of sigma was derived from shin, the lunate form that looks like a C is derived from samekh?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not what I think, it's what I found in the reference I cited.  I admit this isn't the latest bleeding edge scholarship, but at least it's a reference where before we had no reference. --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is in German. Please translate page 74 into English. Georgia guy (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's at the top of p. 75. It says that lunate sigma is from samekh, and regular sigma from sin.
 * If you're going to contribute to articles on philology, I humbly submit that you're going to have to consult non-English references. Plenty of translation tools are readily available, I often consult references in languages that I don't actually read. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I found out that the book was published in 1842. That was before the Mexican War. Do plenty of people today still believe this statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"Babylon disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Babylon disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Babylon disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Iwo Eleru skull
Hello, perhaps you'll be interested in this material. I guess de:Iwo-Eleru-Schädel describes the fossils in question. Ghirla-трёп- 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the paper, it's by the same authors that claimed such a "ghost population" back in 2018. The result does not surprise me in the least, but I would wait until some reviews or replications are out. Also "2 to 19%" doesn't sound like a very specific estimate. But I have no doubt that this is correct, the "multiregional hypothesis" has come back with a vengeance since 2015. --dab (𒁳) 18:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Islam in Europe by country
Template:Islam in Europe by country has been nominated for merging with Template:Islam in Europe. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Question About Map/Graphic on Early Human Migrations Page
Hello,

I am referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#/media/File:Early_migrations_mercator.svg

Can you please explain the arrow from the yellow '65' circle which goes to the yellow-green '50 Emiran' circle? I am not familiar with this migration and would like to read more.

Thanks, Utopian100 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's meant to reflect this depiction of the early spread of the R, N, M mt-haplogroups. It needed an arrow going west to east along the coast and another arrow pointing from the coastal expansion to the Levant/Near East. Obviously geographic resolution is very low here, it isn't meant as a claim that anyone migrated across the Pamir range or anything of the kind, it's just back migration along the coastal route but the arrow had to be placed alongside the one pointing in the opposite direction. --dab (𒁳) 05:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Specific letter-diacritic combinations has been nominated for renaming
Category:Specific letter-diacritic combinations has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ktav Ashuri merger
This past November, you proposed merging Ktav Ashuri with History of the Hebrew alphabet (see here ). Customarily, the proposer of a merger provides a rationale on the article’s associated talk page. When you have a moment, would you please add your reasoning there? Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  07:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Imho, it is unnecessary red tape to require a "custmoray reasoning" in cases where the rationale is patently obvious.
 * You don't have to agree, but surely it must be clear to you what the proposal is?
 * --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You know, in the time it took you to write this, you could’ve written that. And, it is not “patently obvious” to the non-expert in the topic area. But, since you did not provide a merger rationale as is, again, the norm, don’t be surprised if it is closed for the lack of proposer rationale and/or merger activity (not by me, but by editors who work on merger proposals and/or and an admin who works on merger proposals). Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)  P.S. I see that there has been some activity there, and that your reasons are now posted for interested others to contemplate and comment on. Thanks! —  Spike  Toronto  06:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I have only taken the time to "write this" because you asked me to. Which is fair enough, but I prefer to invest the time in coversations that actually do have somebody listening.
 * You see, I have been more or less active on Wikipedia since 2004, and I have learned to optimise the time I spend on here. I have also learned to walk away from disputes after I have explained my position once and the other side does not seem to understand what I am saying, it is far more effective to invest time in areas that are dispute-free.
 * Now that I have explained myself I hope the situation has become clear, and if you still oppose my suggestion for some reason, you can do whatever you like with the article and I will go elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of some foreign character warning box templates
Several foreign character warning box templates, some of which you created, have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Genetic memory (biology) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genetic memory (biology) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Genetic memory (biology) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Yoga (exercise)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yoga (exercise). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Neo-völkisch movements for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neo-völkisch movements is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Neo-völkisch movements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ffranc (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Heidelberg Man
Could you comment on this edit? It has made the lede incomprehensible and removed a lot of referenced text. Ghirla-трёп- 21:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind. The lede seems to have been disrupted by another edit at a later date. Ghirla-трёп- 21:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Modern literature has been nominated for renaming
Category:Modern literature has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Finnic paganism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Finnic paganism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Universel Murad Hassil
Some work has been done on the Universel Murad Hassil page. Is it possible to remove the "notability" tag? Do you have suggestions? Hans 08:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess -- I am not sure. In any case, at the current stage of development, it would be preferable to include it under a Western Sufism section. Not so much due to lack of notability per se but wrt relative notability within the "Western Sufism" topic. --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been trying to profile the building as a public place of interest. That is why I made the long list of events staged there. (A collapsible table.) The whole Universel Murad Hassil page has become much bigger than the "Western Sufism" topic. Hans 08:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Surya Siddhanta
Hi,

I am messaging since you were one of the major contributors to Surya Siddhanta. A user is now pushing the claim that the book dates to centuries BC based on a single paper and removing references to later chronology. Since you are more knowledgeable about the topic, could you please look into it?

Best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop Vandalism - why removing heavily referenced sections without description?
Hi Dbachmann,

I have noticed that you teamed up with Razimantv to possibly Vandalise the heavily referenced sections from Surya Siddhanta. You provided no description and removed large chunck of material and references. My added sections are based on Modern Science empirical proof and experimental evidence of testing and concluding the dates of the updates made to Surya Siddhanta. This is the work of many researchers such as Nilesh Oak, Sudarshan Bhardwaj, Rupa Bhatty, Anil Narayanan who did not "speculate" but rather tested and presented/published their work and results in the public domain.

"Wikipedia is a neutral source of information"

You can delete material without adding description because it does not fit in your world view. Wikipedia is a neutral place which contain overall information about a topic not one sided perspective.

9,000 years old archaeological antiquities have been found in the locations of Indus Valley Civilization. Indian antiquity is much older than your CE era perception.

Mahabharata alone contains 300+ astronomical observations and Valmiki Ramayana alone contains 200+ astronomical observations which are testable by the modern tools of astronomy.

I hope this gives you a perspective of BC era antiquity of Indian civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulChawla1990 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!
Your graphic posted to the Denisovian article is very educational! I've never researched the literature, but have long wondered about the peopling of New Guinea, Australia, etc. Your sea level info takes much of the mystery out of it. Activist (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you, I believe you are referring to File:Map of Sunda and Sahul.png? This is by de:User:Chumwa. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That indeed is what I was referring to. I'll send my compliments to Chumwa!

"A"

Thank you very much! Moon template adaptation
I used your template at user:Dbachmann/moon to build a Userbox that shows the current moon phase. I’ve tried to credit you everywhere I can. - TimDWilliamson speak 20:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Egyptian ayin" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Egyptian ayin. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 8 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Egyptian alef" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Egyptian alef. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 8 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Information regarding genuineness of Puya
Hello May I take your kind attention regarding the topic Puya.Puya is indeed a form of Meitei literature and it was verified by National Archive of India that the texts or script exist before 19th century.I am not trying to spam but help wikipedia grow based on facts and proofs I found..here is the link that prove that the script exist before 19th century.. Luwanglinux (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wondered
Why you changed the redirect for 11th millennium BC back to Late Pleistocene from Timeline of human prehistory.  Serendi pod ous  21:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell you, I admit this was probably mistaken. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hominini
Hi, do you have a reference for [Hominini], Gray 1824/1825, to include chimps? thanks. page 338 doesn't seem to cut it Jmv2009 (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent question. I remember spending time researching this, and it was very difficult to come up with original references. Either way. First of all, it seems that "Gray (1824)" is wrong, and never referenced. Others cite "Gray (1825)", but again without specific reference. I guess we will have to locate the original 1825 source after all. Your 1825 source on "Mr. Gray on Mammalia" has Hominidae and Hominina, but no Hominini at all. This supports the assumption that Gray would only have come up with Hominini after this was published. --dab (𒁳) 06:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My experience with taxonomy authorities is that zoologists tend to just lazily copy from one another. They will just write "Gray 1825" without checking or citing which publication this refers to. Sometimes, errors creep in and are multiplied ad infinitum because nobody ever checks. It is very easy to cite tons of zoological publications that attribute Hominini to "Gray 1825". As you have done the work of locating the 1825 publication in question, it appears that Gray never used Hominini at all. He used Hominidae and Hominina, but as you correctly note, not Hominini. The quest now becomes to locate when this specific term was indeed first used. It will turn out, I believe, that whoever introduced this, did so in close proximity to referring to "Gray 1825", and later authors sloppily took the reference to include Hominini. I tried to do this research once before, and I remember that it was tedious, but I don't remember what exactly I ended up concluding and based on what, and I may have been sloppy. So we need to start over and find the first use of Hominini and what exactly it was introduced for. --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

... and the answer is Arambourg 1948. I do not have hours to sink into this atm, so I may still be being sloppy, but it appears to be clear that this isn't Gray's term at all. --dab (𒁳) 11:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Not getting closer than and, references to L.S.B. Leakey. Which reference of Arambourg is it? See e.g.. Thanks. See also C. Arambourg: Mammalia. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I will look into this with interest when I have some time. But this is the sort of literature research that tends to take some effort. --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew script
I noticed that you were the first to add an explanation to the Script/Hebrew template. What I wanted to ask is, if Script/Hebrew "marks a string as in the Hebrew language" then why should we "Use simple ... for inline citation of Hebrew."? In other words, what is the intended difference between the two templates? Debresser (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You misquote, the rationale is " marks a string as Hebrew script", not "marks a string as Hebrew language". The idea is that a script is not a language. A language may be written in several scripts, and a script may encode more than one language, and indeed non-linguistic content. Possible applications are strings in the Hebrew script when discussing the script itself, or when referring to inscriptions or other sequences of letters with non-linguistic, cryptographic, magic/occult, or unknown significance. Idk if the "Hebrew" portion is useful, but the scope of the script is much wider in principle, intended for e.g. differentiating script variants that aren't represented in Unicode (such as Nastaliq, or regional CJK variants). --dab (𒁳) 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I actually quoted you precisely as you wrote it: "marks a string as in the Hebrew language", but in any case I understand what you mean. The script is for anything that is not Hebrew, but is using Hebrew script. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tadhkirah


The article Tadhkirah has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of notability, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pepper Beast   (talk)  04:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal which you may be interested in
Please see Tfd, where I proposed to merge Template:Lang-he-n into Template:Lang-he. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"15th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 15th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"13th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 13th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"16th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 16th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"Gregorian calendar reform" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gregorian calendar reform. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Template redirect deletion proposal which you may be interested in
Please see this Rfd discussion, where I propose to delete another Hebrew-related template: Template:Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"East Nordic" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect East Nordic. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Special character
Hi Dieter, how are you? It has been a long time since we fought trolls together in the early days of WP, and I glad to see that you are still here :-). I very curious about how you made the roofs in this edit.--Berig (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

hello Berig, I am also happy to hear from you -- I have given up on Wikipedia a little bit, but I still do the occasional edit (but I have increasingly shifted my attention to de-wiki), I feel strongly that at least en-wiki has now fully fallen victim to the US culture wars, something I still thought could be fought with insisting on "NPOV" and what have you, back in the noughties, and even the mid tens, but I think the way things are going in America, it has been unavoidable to turn out the way it has, even with the best intentions, it is no longer possible to avoid this in America, even if your only aim is to genuinely stay away from it. For the time being, this can be reasonably routed around by sticking to non-English-language platforms and to avoid anything explicitly political.

The "roofs" in my edit are supposed to represent bindrunes, i.e. in this particular inscription one of the strokes of each g-rune is also used as the stalk for the vowel rune. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, this wasn't what you asked, of course you are aware of what it means. You asked how I "made" them. They are Unicode combining diacritics and I simply copy-pasted the character (U+0361: x&#x0361;x). --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-). Well, things seem to be going in the wrong direction in the US, and unfortunately identity politics are spilling over into Europe as well, or at least into Sweden. I feel like writing about things Old Norse, and Proto-Norse, again. Unfortunately, things quickly turned political again, and another editor went on a rampage. I will see how long editing stays fun.--Berig (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had similar encounters. There is nothing to be done about it. Ten years ago, I had hope that Wikipedia would serve as a tool for the open exchange and scrutiny of ideas, so that it would become more and more difficult to indoctrinate people by mass propaganda, and indeed it has held out longer than most other platforms, but the historical forces at play in the US are too strong. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not seen this yet, but I believe you. I hope the tide turns.--Berig (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"21st millennium" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 21st millennium. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of God as the devil for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article God as the devil, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/God as the devil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"List of Yogis" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of Yogis. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hindu Writers' Forum


The article Hindu Writers' Forum has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article has not cited any sources since December 2008. A search did not reveal any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —  Newslinger  talk   08:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"It from Bit" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect It from Bit. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Vishvakarman
May I rely upon your opinion on the wholesale removal of large portions of this article by user Chariotrider555? The following link will take you to the relevant discussion. 48Pills (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Script/SMP
Template:Script/SMP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Script/BMP
Template:Script/BMP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Contract killing in popular culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Contract killing in popular culture, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Contract killing in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Pani for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pani until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Semitic romanization for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Semitic romanization is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Semitic romanization until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coin945 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Witch (word(" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Witch (word(. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Copts
Hi, can you please remove the semi-protection from the Copts article? It's been protected since 2011, and I don't see any reason for the semi-protection to remain. Thanks! pandakekok9 (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request
What does the middle of this sentence is the Diego article mean?:
 * The suggestion that this identification may be folk etymological, i.e. a name Didacus, Diego of unknown origin would at a later time have been identified with Jacobo, is made by Buchholtz (1894), even though this possibility is judged as improbable.

Thanks. — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack 05:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I admit this is less than crystal clear prose. I was searching for literature, and this 1894 article was the first I found that explicitly addressed the question. After that, I found more literature, but I left Buchholtz in because I don't like throwing away references I spent time searching for. So what Buchholtz (1894) is saying, here, is the following: For the question at hand ("is the connection San Diego - Sant Yago real or just folk etymology?"), I was using Buchholtz as an early attemt to derive the name from alternative etymologies. On rereading it, I may have misunderstood, his argument is not intended to present an etymology for the given name Didacus, Diego, instead, his question is whether the slur "Diego" is in fact derived from the given name "Diego". His starting point is the observation that the herders of the Asturian highlands are called "Diegos" as a slur, even though the name is not in use among them, and the name is not uncommon among the coastal populations who are calling them by that name, so he is considering the possibility that Diego as slur has an etymology unrelated to whatever may be the etymology of the name. --dab (𒁳) 07:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the interpretation of Diego as Jacob is the current [1894] standard view (cites Apolinar Rato y Hévia 1891)
 * a derivation via yegua from equa, is "not very probable, but maybe still possible"
 * "I admit this is less than crystal clear prose." I was focused on this aspect.  Could you please rephrase it in the article maybe using parentheses?  I tried to do it myself and was unable to.  I do not have access to the sources.  Thanks. — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  14:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Jurassic" separatism
Hi - I noticed you created Jurassic separatism; any particular reason you used the term "Jurassic" rather than "Jura"? I'm not really familiar with German, but in French, the translation of Jurassic (as in the geological epoch) is Jurassique; to my understanding the translation of "séparatisme jurassien"/"question jurassienne" is Jura separatism/Jura question (as in "vin jurassien" -> Jura wine ). Most texts I have seen speak of Jura, rather than Jurassic or Jurassian. Unless you have objections, I would propose renaming the article Jura separatism (Switzerland).

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a long time ago, but I think I was aware of the jurassique/jurassien problem. If you search for the terms in google books, you find mentions of both "Jurassic separatism" and "Jura separatism". I think the topic is too regional to have any well-established English name either way. If you prefer "Jura separatism", I don't have any problem with the change. --dab (𒁳) 14:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You just need Jura separatism, not the disambiguated "Jura separatism (Switzerland)", because en-wiki only uses brackets in article titles when needed for on-wiki disambiguation. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The reason I included "(Switzerland)" in the proposed title is the existence of the Jura départment in France.  Of course, I'm aware there's probably not been a current of French Jura separatism since about the 16th century (notwithstanding the occupations of the 19th and 20th Centuries), but still precision here only goes towards removing possible ambiguity (which is a valid reason for disambiguation). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, but my point is the following: On English-language Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge, WP:NAME conventions ask that you use brackets in article titles if and only if there is an actual existing Wikipedia article you need to disambiguate from. Even in such cases, you do not use brackets in the article of the "primary topic", instead you use the unbracketed title for the "primary topic", create one entry with "(disambiguation)" and use disambiguating brackets for all the others.
 * I think there is no question that Jura separatism is going to be the primary topic, and if there are any eventual pages on different types of "Jura separatisms" (which there won't be), you'd have to use brackets for those. --dab (𒁳) 04:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Round World version of the Silmarillion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Round World version of the Silmarillion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Round World version of the Silmarillion& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Medieval Persia has been nominated for renaming
Category:Medieval Persia has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Maiorano (surname)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Maiorano (surname). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Fornovo
Hello, I would like to point out that the page battle of Fornovo has been recently hijacked by a user, “Kansas Bear”, who rewrote it with a very clear bias. While most sources (including several he himself cited in the discussion held in the talk page) describe the outcome of the battle as either inconclusive, disputed, or at best a hard-fought French tactical victory which allowed Charles to save his army from encirclement and destruction, this user has presented it as a “French triumph”, with Italian troops being scattered and destroyed in a few minutes (whereas all sources state that the fighting lasted all day), omitting the fact that the entire loot and baggage train of the French army were captured by the Italian league and that Charles quietly withdrew at night during a truce that had been called to bury the dead, hardly the behaviour of someone who had “triumphed”. Additionally, this user has cherry-picked a single source claiming a ridiculously low casualty figure for the French (only 100 killed vs 3,500 on the Italian side) when all sources agree that, while French casualties were lower than those suffered by the Italians, were no less than one thousand in the most optimistic estimate (likewise, the high end estimates have been picked for the Italian stength, which ranged betwen 14,000 and 20,000 but is here presented as 20,000). This user has either ignored or removed all sources that don’t fit his narrative (that is, most), reverted all edits adding more sources and details, and refused, in the past, any discussion about the edit he has done. Can anything be done about it? Could you help in any way? Before you tell me to try to discuss with him or to report him for edit war (which describes his activity extremely well), I will tell you that I won’t, for a very simple reason: the former would be pointless – others have already tried discussing with him on the talk page, to no avail – and the latter as well, as I know well this kind of user, who has been disgracefully made into an admin for unexplainable reasons. He will keep reverting, secure the support of some other admin friend, game the rules to his own advantage, and avoid any discussion or change from his edits, instead having me banned. I know very well this will happen, and in that case, that will be the end of my activity here, for I am tired of seeing an individual being allowed to blatantly violate Wikipedia’s rules and make a travesty of history at his whim. --Jannizzero1 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rtl-para
Template:Rtl-para has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 16:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Kos- for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kos- is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kos- until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"Männerbund" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Männerbund and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. AFreshStart (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Look: this found its way into this. Bravo! Drmies (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Editors of the page 'German school of fencing',

on this page a reference is made to the manual of L'Ange:

Author Jean Daniel L'Ange writes in his book Deutliche und gründliche Erklärung der adelichen und ritterlichen freyen Fecht-Kunst, from 1664 (another edition was published in 1708), that "a big sword is very dangerous in our times because it is more difficult to [carry] around with clothing than a smaller thrusting sword, which can easily be worn." He also writes that "it is possible to kill a man who is armed with a gun in a short range, when he stands close to you[,] with the help of the rapier, because of the highly effective thrusting techniques [that] will save your life, rather than with the slower cutting of a bigger sword or a sabre. You may even be able to kill him, before he can take his gun out of its halter, before he can make the first shot".[16]

Could you indicate where - on which page, in which print - in this book this citation can be found?

Thanks for your help, kind regards, Maurice Donners — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDonners (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Ecclesia (church)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ecclesia (church) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Decline of classical polytheism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Decline of classical polytheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Yugosphere" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yugosphere and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Mats Wendt for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mats Wendt, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Mats Wendt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic FAC
Hi Dbachmann, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Classification of Arabic languages in the past, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clickable world map
Template:Clickable world map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey
Hello Dbachmann, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H


 * Hello! What is the survey about? it requires to run proprietary javascript programs, which in addition to somewhat contradict with wikipedia’s values are things known to resist to proper archival and it may be of use to mention it here on wikipedia for history, especially if it’s meant to help orienting contributions ^^ Galex-713 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hexadecimal’s Etymology
Hello! I’d like to have the opinions of the involved people (idk if merely mentioning their page is enough to highlight them, or if it’s necessary to write on their user pages: so I try both, i’m not very experienced about wikipedia socializing yet). Galex-713 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Unprotection request
Hello, I came accross an article (Issyk kurgan) that you protected for edit warring back in 2009 and was wondering if you would unprotect the article since the protection is no longer serving a purpose. Thanks, Terasail [✉️] 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A-2 for sale to musium only Achilles artifacts
A-2 artifacts of 68.112.82.64 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll send a pic
I 68.112.82.64 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo
Template:International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Switzerland
Hey there Dab. Can you check out what the hell is up with Switzerland? Someone replaced the entire page with the Spanish word for Switzerland, and I get the weirdest error message when trying to revert it (sth. about blacklisted links in earlier versions). Thanks a bunch! Trigaranus (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone has already handled it. I'm a bit miffed it didn't let me do it. Trigaranus (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

"Violence in film" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Violence in film and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 11:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  14:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Assassins in popular culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Assassins in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Assassins in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Spelling of cemetery in Commons files
Looking at File:Rigvedic geography.jpg and File:Indo-Iranian origins.png in commons, I noticed the spelling is Cemetary, please update them to Cemetery. Paul foord (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC) and

"Männerbünde" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Männerbünde and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"Reflex Blue" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Reflex Blue and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 19:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikipedialang (word count)
Template:Wikipedialang (word count) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"Name of Northern Cyprus" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Name of Northern Cyprus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

"Cross paty" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cross paty and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A loose necktie (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Post-1945 history" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Post-1945 history and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

de:Sempacherlied
Hallo Dbachmann

du hast diesen Artikel mal angelegt. Nun sind wohl neue Erkenntnisse eingeflossen. Bitte schau dir den Artikel nochmal an. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"King of Germany" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect King of Germany and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Srnec (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <span style="font-family:Futura,'Century Gothic','Trebuchet MS',serif;"><b style="color:#1974D2;">Senator2029</b> <b style="color:#1974D2;">【talk】</b> 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of North Sudan


A tag has been placed on North Sudan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mccapra (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Heart symbol
I have a question about an edit you made and wanted to make sure I understood the nuance. Do you remember if you meant that there has been no aorta on the hearts suit since its invention in the 15th century, which would mean it’s never been there, or is it something else? Thanks! — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 14:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dbachmann!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Dbachmann, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Bronze Age literature has been nominated for deletion
Category:Bronze Age literature has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Ural District" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ural District and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Coolclawcat (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Islamic empires" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_empires&redirect=no Islamic empires] and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Indo-Persian_culture
Hello, my name is Omotecho (talk), and as I edit ja-Wikipedia I wish you would advise me how I de-stub Indo-Persian_culture article. To outline such a huge subject, I scanned the edit history on English Wikipedia (enwp), and your edit looks very fair to me.

Would you agree that it will be good and choose the above link as the starting point, if I will expand the equivalent article on jawp? The current jawp article is miserably non-encyclopedic IMHO, and the gap between matching articles on enwp-jawp is so big I am lost where to start… Kindly share your view please, whenever your time is handy. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Living memory" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Living_memory&redirect=no Living memory] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"Greco-Roman ethnography" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greco-Roman_ethnography&redirect=no Greco-Roman ethnography] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Mikeblas (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Greco-Roman ethnographers" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greco-Roman_ethnographers&redirect=no Greco-Roman ethnographers] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 13:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Sumerian rulers has been nominated for renaming
Category:Sumerian rulers has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

moon user box
Hi,

An [User:Dbachmann/moon1], could you change the .png file extension to .svg? They're smaller, and we don't need the .png any more. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom case request notification
I'm sure there's a template or something for this but I'm not aware of what I should use and what's important is notifiying you of this discussion. I initiated a case request at ArbCom: Arbitration/Requests/Case. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I’m a bit strapped for time right now but could please reverse your unblock of Andew? Per Blocking policy, “Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter.” And I said I would be opposed to any unblock without a topic ban on the talk page. There was an unanswered question from Andew on the talk, I believed your unblock jumped the gun a bit on that discussion. If you do not reverse your block I will take this up in another venue. Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 12:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am myself strapped for time. Which is a bad excuse when taking actions like this, I hope I can invest some time in this tonight. But when in doubt, if you believe a user absolutely needs to be banned asap to prevent damage to the project, chances are extremely high that you will not be the only admin to think so. Please let us both take a step back from this. In my judgement, you have clearly, blatantly stepped over a line here. If you think that no, it was me who is out of line, let us please leave this to a third, or fourth, or fifth previously uninvolved party.
 * I have received my admin buttons back in 2004, and I freely admit I haven't used them in a good while, but that's the way I remember things should be done, if challenged, take a step back and let others make a call.
 * If you find a third admin (ideally one without known prejudice or involvement) and they decide to overturn my action, I absolutely promise you will hear no further complaints from me. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As a third admin who had never heard of this editor before reading AN this morning? I think your unblock is so utterly unacceptable that I briefly entertained thoughts that your account was compromised due to the mentions of twitter canvassing on AN.  This might have been acceptable back in 2004, but undiscussed unblocks (without even a formal unblock request!) are not the way things are done anymore, unless urgent or so clearly wrong that a misclick is the most likely explanation (think along the lines of blocking the AIV reporter for vandalism, not the vandal; we're talking that obvious), there needs to be discussion first before unilaterally undoing an admin action.  The fact the block had stood for three days and no one else had undone it should have been enough to tell you it wasn't in that category.
 * As to how to resolve it? Reading that discussion I think a R&I topic ban is almost inevitable for Andew, done under WP:CTOP.  It wouldn't have surprised me had that discussion gone that way eventually without this hasty unblock. Courcelles (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review - AndewNguyen. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I urge you to respond to the ANI thread at the earliest possible opportunity. The longer you leave this, the higher the risk that you will lose your admin tools via a suspended arbitration case. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte for recent examples. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus might emerge that the block should be re-instated without Dbachmann having a chance to respond. But those suspended cases you link developed over days and weeks not hours. Dbachmann having said nothing about an ANI thread that is less than 2 hours old is not (on its own) a crisis that jeopardizes their status as an admin. I agree that Dbachmann should respond to the concerns raised at that thread under policy, but let's not over state the urgency at play here. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree this is not that urgent at the moment. My point was rather that the ANI thread can't be ignored completely, which is sometimes an option elsewhere. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Welp, the situation is now urgent. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I need to advise you that some administrators are contemplating blocking you indefinitely, as well as the related arbitration case that has opened to remove your admin tools. Again, I urge you to respond either at ANI or at Arbcom, as your silence (and observation that you have been editing the German Wikipedia implies you have been consciously avoiding this) is not only increasing the chances you won't be able to edit Wikipedia at all, but it's taking time away from editors to work out what to do, which would have been better spent writing or improving articles.

As far as I can observe, Moneytrees indefinitely blocked AndewNguyen because there was a consensus to do so on a related AN thread, and for no other reason. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well to be clear @Ritchie333, I blocked Andew after observing their behavior and seeing the previous disputes they had been in and warnings they received, there wasn't some AN thread before hand.
 * Dbachmann, I'm mostly ambivalent about the case right now, but I would really encourage to respond in at least some way on Enwiki. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Dbachmann
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Speedy deletion nomination of Neo-pagan (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Neo-pagan (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. { {ping&#124;ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 20:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Dbachmann: Case request declined after desysop
Hello ,

The case request titled Dbachmann has been declined by a majority of the active arbitrators, primarily because the aforementioned desysop motion passed and removed the need for a full case.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Community topic ban: Race
As a result of this discussion, you are indefinitely topic banned by the community from race (human categorization), broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after its enactment, and every twelve months thereafter.  Sandstein  11:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of heraldic charges for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of heraldic charges, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of heraldic charges until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"Assholism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assholism&redirect=no Assholism] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Abcde for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abcde is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Abcde until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Dawnbails (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ITN map
Template:ITN map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

"Muslim scholars" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_scholars&redirect=no Muslim scholars] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Slavic cultures for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Slavic cultures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Slavic cultures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Oberwerschen B-bracteate.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Oberwerschen B-bracteate.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука13 04:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Manouche
Hello, Dbachmann, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Actualcpscm, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Manouche, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Manouche.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 12:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Illyrian movement has been nominated for deletion
Category:Illyrian movement has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Archive template at top of this page
Howdy. Any interest in having me fix your user talk archive box at the top of the page? I can probably get the page number links to work if I move pages such as User talk:Dbachmann/archive1 to User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 1. I'd be willing to do that if you want. Just let me know. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Modern paganism in Latin Europe


The article Modern paganism in Latin Europe has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Pretty much entirely unsourced and non-notable content. Simply doesn't need an article separate from Modern paganism at this stage"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ISO 259-3
Template:ISO 259-3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"Proto-Nostratic" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proto-Nostratic&redirect=no Proto-Nostratic] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"Aryan (word)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_(word)&redirect=no Aryan (word)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"W.O.T.A.N." listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W.O.T.A.N.&redirect=no W.O.T.A.N.] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Fikcgzbm
It looks like keyboard smash but apparently it's a Germanic name you added a decade ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_name&diff=prev&oldid=468096943 I can't find any internet citations (unlike the adjacent names) and it doesn't have enough vowels, but thought I'd drop a line as I delete it.

-- random passing wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.193.19 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"Mercury vortex engine" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury_vortex_engine&redirect=no Mercury vortex engine] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Wombat140 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Petrus Olai (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Petrus Olai (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Noetics


The article Noetics has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The main topic is not notable and existing content is already better covered by the page on Nous, see Talk page."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. agucova (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ergal (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Ergal (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ja-kyung


The article Ja-kyung has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of notability; fails WP:NNAME."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Guets Nois
Whether it was 'just' the straw that broke the camel's back or whatever else, it's WP's loss that you haven't edited here since that case. I very much hope you are well and wish you only the best. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey there, Dab. Just dropped in to agree with the Key feller above. I have always liked WP, but boy was that whole affair a shit show worthy of 2023. Made me actively cross. I hope you're doing alright and are hopefully swinging a sword or two for fun. Miss your snarky replies. Trigaranus (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"Swiss government" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swiss_government&redirect=no Swiss government] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Sister Pelagia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sister Pelagia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sister Pelagia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Pre-Celtic Europe for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pre-Celtic Europe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pre-Celtic Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"術" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%A1%93&redirect=no 術] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Remsense 诉  03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 方 (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 方 (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/方 (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Remsense 诉  00:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Candidates for the first novel" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Candidates_for_the_first_novel&redirect=no Candidates for the first novel] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Aramean-Syriac people protection
The redirect Aramean-Syriac people is fully protected by you indefinitely, and has not faced disruption in a decade and a half, meaning it should ideally be accessible to any constructive editing according to WP:PROT. Would you object to unprotection of the page? EggRoll97 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)